Sermon and Worship Resources

Luke 16:19-31 · The Rich Man And Lazarus

19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25 "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30 " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Mission to Unbelievers

Luke 16:19-31

Sermon
by Wallace H. Kirby

Dives, if we can take tradition’s name for him, first wanted personal relief from his eternal torments. But when Father Abraham, God’s stand-in, refused, Dives asked for a weekend pass to return and warn his brothers. Request denied! Abraham simply said that Moses and the prophets were sufficient. And even if Abraham should go himself, it would not lead Dives’ brothers to repentance. They would only see it as an extraordinary event making no claim upon their lives.

So Dives and his brothers, and their modern counterparts, continue in unbelief. For them there is no ultimate, personal meaning to life, even though with the poet Hardy, they rush to the stable on Christmas Eve to see if it were true that the animals knelt in reverence, "hoping it might be so." Dives, his family and present company would write a different letter to that little girl and to themselves: "No, Virginia - there is no Santa Claus."

Ecclesiastes, although evidencing only a mild case of what to Bertrand Russell becomes a sense of "slow, sure doom ... pitiless and dark," holds the ethical line. Like Frederick Robertson’s doubting moment, the sense of "ought" retains its force even when the comforts of theology crumble. We read Albert Camus similarly in our own day. God never seemed to fall into place for this sensitive author, although his writings make clear that he did his homework on the issues. He did not give them sophomoric or cavalier dismissal. Yet ethics, personal and social, were at the heart of Camus’ concerns. He looked to the needs of his neighbor, even though he had no ultimate reason for doing so. Against Dostoyevski, ancient and contemporary unbelievers do not agree that the absence of belief destroys what Luke calls "Moses and the prophets."

Dives and his brothers are of another unbelieving type. Perhaps they did give outward evidence of belief - worship at the Temple, ceremonial propriety, and the various prayers of orthodoxy. But inwardly, theirs was a practical atheism, an unbelief that allowed them callous insensivity toward injustice. Lazarus, on the lower edge of that marginal society, lay at the doorstep day after day, and they made no move to minister to his needs - still less to raise the question about social and economic arrangements that allow such suffering. These unbelievers make a different conclusion of their unbelief: there is no claim other than that which we happen to prefer at the moment. Cole Porter wrote their song: "Anything Goes."

Christians are called to care about both types of unbelievers. It will not do for us to thunder against the atheists of our day either the admirable or the despicable sort. Rather, in terms of our Lukan passage, we are called to witness to these persons. We are to be the sufficient "Moses and the prophets" to them. One of the great chapters in church history of the early centuries is the work of the Apologists. The term is unfortunate for they were not saying, "I’m sorry, but I’m a Christian." What they were saying was that Christianity made real sense out of life and that one would neglect it at his or her peril. We contemporary Christians need to be "apologists" in word and deed in today’s descendants of the Ecclesiastes tradition, and of Dives and his brothers - the unbelieving crowd.

One vital element of this effort is an intellectually respectable presentation of the faith. How many sensitive and thoughtful persons do we lose when we insist on presenting Christianity in forms and styles that do not speak to today’s mind-set? A young man came to my office who had been feeling the claim of God upon his life. He was reading the New Testament and had gotten into the Book of Revelation, where his university-trained mind simply boggled. Taken straight and without context, he could have none of the bizarre mood of Revelation. He saw no options other than the Hal Lindsay fantasies, or outright rejection. Some discussion about the background and context of Revelation began to offer him a more believable alternative. He went home with a commentary under his arm, prepared for mature belief, courtesy of modern historical, literary criticism. But how many in the pew, or watching the Bible-thumper on TV, or listening to us gossip the gospel, are put off by our unacceptable presentations?

One of the slogans of ecumenical Christianity has been, "The Needs of the World Write the Agenda." The meaning is that the church must learn to listen carefully to the concerns of the world as it stakes out its program and direction; otherwise, it will be like those Scouts who help old ladies cross streets they don’t want to cross in the first place. In another sense, the world sets the agenda of apologetics - of presenting the faith as a believable possibility. The worldly agenda today is governed by reason and science. Granted that science forfeits its name when it preaches the dogmas of naturalism; and granted that what is reasonable to one person is often quite unreasonable to another. Yet is is important to understand that intelligent faith-presenting must go through science and the tests of human reason, not around them, if we are going to make lasting contact with thoughtful persons in today’s world.

A bright, young graduate student in a scientific field was part of a student worship service during the holidays. In his talk he spoke about evolution as if it was totally incompatible with faith. He eyed the congregation to detect signs of hostility or shock. What a tragedy that this son of the church had been allowed to go through the church school and confirmation without having been helped to make an enriching combination of Darwin and the faith! I notice that now he has entered his vocation after graduation and has requested that his name be placed on the "withdrawn by personal request" list.

I am sure the conservative churches are about the only ones that are growing. Dean Kelley’s Why Conservative Churches Are Growing told us all about it ten years ago. But one does wonder if they are really reaching out to claim new Christians or are instead just re-cycling those from other congregations and denominations? Perhaps the market does not exist for an intelligent presentation of the faith, one that asks no sacrifice of contemporary mind-set and does not call us to think about the faith in the categories of by-gone times. I choose to believe that there will always be Dives and his brothers around, and that we are called to make the faith a believable option to them, too.

Another necessary witness to unbelief will be the involvement of the church to the unbelieving poor. Poverty takes more than its physical toll; it diminishes one’s ability to believe. The Book of James says that if we tell the poor, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without making effort to feed and clothe the poor, then there is a death-quality about our belief. "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."

In my office I have a copy of the 1908 Discipline of The Methodist Episcopal Church. To me it is a very important edition of that document which we Methodists revise and publish every four years. In 1908 the General Conference of our church adopted a Social Creed to be companion to our other theological statements. This was an attempt to specify the meaning of the gospel as it relates to economic, industrial, international and family concern. As an outgrowth of the Social Gospel Movement, it is an impressive contention that our faith has irrefutable social meanings.

It would be nice to be able to say that the struggle for the recognition of the social implications of the gospel has been won since that 1908 effort. But the fact is that in no Christian tradition has this attempt overcome its critics, inside and outside the church. Recently American Roman Catholic Bishops released a preliminary statement on the economy. Already critical voices have been raised, not only by those who disagree with their specific diagnoses; some raise the issue of the Bishops’ right to speak about the economy in the first place! Apparently the sense of rigid separation between faith and society is still held by many persons.

There is nothing inherent in Christian faith, or even elevation to the episcopacy, that dispenses special wisdom about economic or other-worldly matters. Being Christian makes us neither more nor less intelligent about such things. But it is our calling to attempt the mesh between faith and matters of justice and welfare in the world. The price of not doing so is certainly evangelistic: those crushed or confined by our present economic, political or cultural systems will turn a deaf ear to our Christ-presenting.

A young Lutheran pastor has been turned out of his pulpit by his Bishop in an industrial city in the midwest. Apparently he identified himself in sermon and deeds with a group that was challenging the justice of plant closings in his city. This group, supposedly, has been responsible for some actions that were calculated to embarrass and obstruct a system that takes little regard for decisions bringing unemployment and hopelessness upon workers. One need not defend this pastor’s style or tactics. Perhaps his Bishop had no other choice. But it is clear that his witness threatens any comfortable assumptions that we may have about the separation of belief from worldly witness. Such Amos-like courage may catch the hearts and minds of more of the unbelieving victims of our system than might mass crusades in outdoor stadiums.

III

Our final point of witness to unbelief will be the quality of our own lives. Perhaps this is the most crucial of all. How often we spoil the faith for someone else by the miserable way we live and behave! Nietzsche got in his digs on this: he said that Christians would have to look more redeemed before he would believe. And how powerfully we communicate the faith by the admirable quality of our life. One man once said of his brother, "He is an everlasting barrier between me and atheism."

Yet the worst thing we can do is attempt a program of apologia by winsome personal example. The result will turn out to be a gross failure. Haven’t we had enough of those Christians whose bubbly happiness and cheerful helpfulness seems more like Mary Poppins than Mary Magnificat? These Christians might seem more real and more believable if we could think that they sometimes were angry - complete with heated monologue, and occasionally had a moment of theological despair, accompanied by thoughts of joining The Ethical Culture Society.

Needed as is our vibrant personal witness, it will work better as a by-product of our own commitment, with a large dose of self-forgetfulness thrown in. In reality, we’re always "on" in this department and we never know when the curtain goes up for someone else. But the more we try to force it, the less effective our witness becomes.

In The Hope of Glory, John Coburn tells of Arthur Lichtenberger, former presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, serving in retirement on the faculty of Episcopal Theological Seminary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bishop Lichtenberger was ill with Parkinson’s disease, seriously affecting his walking and his speech. One cold February day Coburn was in a low mood. He happened to see Bishop Lichtenberger, on his wife’s arm, shuffling along the icy walk. It was a refreshment of faith for John Coburn: "All I could do was rejoice in them." Quite likely, Bishop Lichtenberger never knew what he meant to John Coburn’s spirit that bitter, winter day.

As unforced as this witness must be, it cannot be taken lightly by any who are concerned to witness to the faith by the quality of our lives. Personal integrity, humbleness, an affirming spirit, honesty, faithfulness to commitment to marriage and family, hard work - it seems strange to need to cite such qualities. But they will be necessary to effective witness through our personal lives. Edward R. Murrow has been gone for some time now. Some of us remember him for his contributions to the tough issues involved in television broadcasting. When few were eager, he took on Senator Joseph McCarthy, helping to reduce that senator’s oppressive influence. In a biography of Murrow we learn that he told his future wife that what she appreciated in him was due to a handicapped college speech teacher, Ida Lou Anderson:

She taught me one must have more than a good bluff to really live. I owe the ability to live to her, and to her you owe the things you like in me. She calls me her masterpiece.

Christian faith directed to the unbelieving sorts like Dives, his brother, and their contemporary counterparts, will have something of that which marked the life of ida Lou Anderson: admirable personal qualities that help to open the doorway to belief, trust, and life.

CSS Publishing Company, If Only..., by Wallace H. Kirby

Overview and Insights · How to Use Money and Possessions (16:1–31)

Often Jesus discusses the use of possessions in connection with discipleship. He opens with the puzzling parable of the shrewd manager (16:1–13). When a manager is faced with losing his job, he decides to act shrewdly by reducing what people owed his boss, perhaps by removing his own commission. In the end, both the boss and the manager gain honor, an important consideration in a culture that values honor and despises shame. Jesus doesn’t commend anything unethical here, but he does pay tribute to the manager’s clever shrewdness (16:8). Jesus then encourages disciples to use wealth to enhance relationships (16:9). How we handle small things is the best indicator as to how we will handle big things (16:10–12). In addition, we can’t ser…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Luke 16:19-31 · The Rich Man And Lazarus

27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30 " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Commentary · The Rich Man And Lazarus

At this point the chapter returns to the theme of the proper use of riches (16:19–31). Verses 19–26 teach that there will be a reversal of fortunes after death. The rich man lives in great luxury during his life, but he is apparently unconcerned about the plight of the poor. Lazarus is abandoned at his gate, diseased and hungry. Dogs, which were considered to be unclean and a nuisance, lick the sores on his body. He is even denied the pleasure of eating the leftovers from the rich man’s table; however, when the two men die, their roles are reversed. Lazarus goes to Abraham’s bosom (16:22), perhaps another way of describing the messianic banquet. This expression occurs only here in the Bible. The rich man goes to Hades (16:23). Hades is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word sheol and usually indicates the realm of the dead. Here it clearly refers to a place of torment. Possibly this parable teaches that sheol is divided into two realms, one of blessing and one of punishment. But the parable should not be pressed too hard for such information since this is not the main point of the story. As Lazarus desired the crumbs from the rich man’s table, now the rich man wants just a drop of water from Lazarus (16:24). But he is denied. A chasm exists between Lazarus and the rich man, and now the rich man is reaping what he sowed. There is a clear message to Christian disciples here; they need to use their money prudently and generously in order to enter eternal dwellings (cf. 16:9). In verses 27–31 the parable takes a different tack. The rich man realizes that it is too late for him, so he entreats Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers of their imminent doom (16:27–28). (One should not use this detail of a parable to probe the self-consciousness of those who are being punished.) Abraham dismisses the suggestion because the brothers already have “Moses and the Prophets” (16:29). This also suggests that the message of Jesus does not invalidate Old Testament revelation (cf. 16:17). The rich man, however, protests that the Scriptures are not enough. They need the definitive proof that a resurrection would provide (16:30). Abraham retorts that this is incorrect. Those who do not put credence in the Scriptures will not be persuaded by a resurrection. Certainly Jesus’s resurrection was in Luke’s mind when he wrote this. The point of the last part of the parable is clear. No miracle can convince anyone of the credibility of the kingdom message. The Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, and those who reject their message will rationalize miraculous phenomena as well.

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

Big Idea: Material wealth can go with spiritual poverty; in the end it is spiritual wealth that matters.

Understanding the Text

There has been no change of audience since 16:14: Jesus is still speaking primarily to the Pharisees. (He will return to teaching the disciples in 17:1.) Luke has characterized the Pharisees as lovers of money (16:14), so this parable is a warning to the affluent. It is thus the culmination of a theme, already set out in the blessings and woes of 6:20–26, that has run strongly through these middle chapters of the Gospel, especially in 12:13–34; 14:1–24, 33–34; 16:1–15: treasure in heaven is more important than wealth and comfort on earth.

Central to this teaching on wealth has been the assumption that this world is not the end, and that how we use our wealth here with respect to other people has consequences for our life after death (12:20–21, 32–34; 14:14, 15–24; 16:8–9). This parable focuses in on that theme, fills out the meaning of the “eternal dwellings” of 16:9, and offers the fullest portrayal of life after death in this Gospel. Indeed, this passage, together with Matthew 25:31–46, provides the essential data for understanding Jesus’s teaching on the traditional “four last things” (death, judgment, heaven, hell).

Historical and Cultural Background

There is unmistakable anger in Jesus’s description of the social inequality that was typical of first-century Palestine, as it has been of most cultures, ancient and modern. If the beggars are not literally at our gates, we know that they are out there if we dare to look. It was taken for granted in Jewish society that there would be rich and poor, but almsgiving was expected and highly valued. Rabbi Simeon the Just (third century BC) said, “By three things is the world sustained: by the law, by temple-service and by acts of generosity” (m. ’Abot 1:2). By the first century there was a well-organized relief system based on the synagogues, sustained by contributions from members of the community. This was partly regulated by the so-called tithe for the poor (Deut. 26:12), but there was also much private initiative, to the extent that the rabbis had to regulate to prevent a man impoverishing himself and his family by excessive giving.

The Pharisees, in disagreement with the Sadducees (20:27; Acts 23:6–8), believed in a life after death. In most of the Old Testament “Hades” represented the abode of the dead, a place of neither joy nor punishment, but a shadowy survival to which no one looked forward except as an escape from earthly suffering. But Daniel 12:2–3 shows a developing idea of differing fates after death, and by the first century the ideas of heaven and hell were widely accepted, though pictured in quite a variety of ways. In Jesus’s teaching “hell” (geenna, “Gehenna” [see on 12:5]) is a place of destruction and/or punishment, but in this parable Hades seems, unusually in the New Testament, to have the same connotation. As in 13:28–29, heaven is again envisaged as a banquet (see below on 16:22).

An Egyptian folktale from around the same period also tells of a reversal of fortunes for a rich and a poor man in the afterlife, with the rich man tormented and the poor man placed close to Osiris.1

Interpretive Insights

16:19 There was a rich man. With no introduction to identify this as a parable, Jesus launches straight into a story of two individuals. As a (presumably) imaginary story designed to provoke reflection and response, it is rightly described as a parable, but the graphic description of the situation of the two men after death makes it also a lesson (in a vividly pictorial form) about the afterlife, and the debate with Abraham about the rich man’s family (16:27–31) adds a further moralizing conclusion. These features are too pronounced to be set aside as merely “scenery” incidental to a supposedly main point that there can be a reversal of fortunes after death, and that selfishness does not pay in the end.

16:20 a beggar named Lazarus. He is the only character in any of Jesus’s parables to be given a personal name, a Greek abbreviated version of the Hebrew name “Eleazar,” meaning “God has helped.” (The medieval use of “lazar” for “leper” derives from this parable; it did not mean “leper” in ancient times.) The naming of the beggar here may simply serve the literary function of providing a name by which the rich man can identify him in 16:24, 27, but it is possible that Jesus expected his hearers to recognize the etymology of the name as reflecting the ultimate outcome of the story. Any link with the Lazarus of John 11 (who, unlike this Lazarus, was sent back from the dead) is unlikely; the name was very common.

16:21 Even the dogs came and licked his sores. This translation is misleading: the Greek says, “But also the dogs. . . .” This is not an escalation of his suffering, but a welcome (and therapeutic) relief. Dogs, unclean as they were in Jewish eyes, did their best for this beggar, whom the respectable company refused to help.

16:22 the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. Literally, it is “to Abraham’s chest.” As in John 13:23–25, to recline at a formal meal “against the chest” of the host (i.e., in the place on the host’s right) denotes the place of honor. Lazarus is taken straight to the messianic banquet, at which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob preside (13:28), and is given the most prestigious place there. The contrast with his earthly condition could not be more marked. The role of angels in conveying a dead person to heaven is unusual, perhaps representing popular belief.

died and was buried. A starkly simple statement in comparison with the fulsome account of what happened to Lazarus. There is to be no further banquet for the rich man.

16:23 In Hades, where he was in torment. On Hades, see “Historical and Cultural Background” above. The “torment,” by fire (16:24), fits the normal understanding of hell (geenna) rather than that of Hades; the two ideas seem to be merged here. (An alternative view, that both men are in Hades, which is envisaged as divided into zones of bliss and of torment, reads less naturally here: Hades is specifically “this place of torment” [16:28], where the rich man now finds himself.) Compare 13:28 for the idea that the suffering of the lost is increased by being able to “see” the saved at the banquet.

16:24 Father Abraham, have pity on me. All Jews claimed Abraham as their “father” (cf. 1:54–55; 13:16; 19:9). In 3:8 John the Baptist envisaged Jews relying on this relationship for salvation, but this man seems resigned to his fate and begs only for palliative help. But he expects Lazarus to be at his beck and call—the habits of a lifetime die hard!

16:25 in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things. The simple reversal of fortunes set out here is specific to this story. It would go beyond the parameters of the parable to find here a more general principle, that all who are privileged on earth will suffer after death, and vice versa. While there is no explicit statement that the rich man’s suffering results from his callous treatment of Lazarus, the loaded way their respective situations were described in 16:19–21 invites the reader to make that assumption.

16:26 a great chasm. The geography of heaven and hell was variously pictured in Jewish writings, but the “chasm” serves here not so much as a topographical feature but rather to picture the complete separation of the two, and thus to emphasize that the division after death is permanent. There seems no room here for any idea of purgatory or of a second chance after death.

16:27 send Lazarus to my family. The rich man assumes that all his brothers are bound for the same destiny, since presumably the whole affluent family shared the same lifestyle (they need to “repent” [16:30]). His altruism, which extends only to those in his immediate family circle, contrasts with his previous lack of interest in the plight of Lazarus.

16:29 they have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them. A Jew had no excuse for ignorance of the way of salvation. Being the “people of the book,” they knew of God’s bias toward the poor, to which both law and prophets give frequent expression. The permanent value of the Old Testament, just asserted in 16:17, is thus reinforced.

16:31 they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. Within the story the point is simple: those who will not listen to Scripture are beyond help; even a miracle will not convince them. But it may also be read as a wry reflection on Jesus’s own experience. Neither his fulfillment of the law and the prophets nor his miracles have convinced the Pharisees, and when the ultimate miracle of his rising from the dead takes place, many of those whom these Pharisees represent will remain unmoved.

Theological Insights

The basic story reinforces the conflict between God and mammon. Affluence can lead to self-sufficiency and to a callous unconcern for the less privileged, and that is the way to spiritual disaster.

But this parable also provides some of the New Testament’s clearest teaching (albeit in pictorial form) about judgment and life after death. The following seem to be assumed:

There is life after death for both good and bad.

The afterlife provides an opportunity for the injustices of life on earth to be corrected (cf. the blessings and woes of 6:20–26).

There is a clear and unbridgeable divide between heaven and hell.

There is no second chance of salvation after death.

Judgment is based on our response to God’s will as set out in the Scriptures.

Like the other great judgment scene in Matthew 25:31–46, this parable may leave the impression that judgment is based solely on how we have treated other people. The gospel of salvation through the atoning death of Christ must be supplied from elsewhere in the New Testament.

Teaching the Text

This parable raises both ethical and theological issues that can be discussed in a sermon or lesson.

Ethically, it cries out against socioeconomic injustice. Encourage listeners to consider how far our affluent lifestyle today is complicit in a similar injustice, and what we can do about it both individually and corporately. Who are our Lazaruses, and where are they (internationally as well as locally)? This would be a good place to review this important theme of the rich and poor throughout Luke’s Gospel (e.g., Mary’s Magnificat [1:46–53], the beatitudes and woes [6:20–26], the parable of the rich fool [12:13–21], etc.). On the theme of the eternal consequences of one’s concern for the poor and oppressed, compare Matthew’s parable of the sheep and the goats (25:31–46).

Theologically, the parable provides an opportunity to discuss our understanding of judgment and of life after death, taking up the issues listed in “Theological Insights” above. Discuss how much is pictorial imagery (carried by angels, Abraham’s bosom, fire, the cooling finger, visibility between heaven and hell, the great chasm, etc.), and what are the realities underlying the imagery. Remember that this is a parable and is not necessarily intended to describe the specifics of the afterlife.

Does it bother us that the parable says nothing about atonement as the basis of salvation? What might this teach us about our approach to Scripture as a source for theology (i.e., the danger of looking for the whole gospel in a single passage)? How does judgment on the basis of deeds (e.g., Rom. 2:6–11) fit into the gospel of grace?

Illustrating the Text

Those who have material wealth are expected to help others.

Church History: St. Martin of Tours. Born in Hungary, Martin (316–397), while still a boy, attended a Christian church without his parents’ permission at about the time when Christianity, though still looked down on by many in high society, was becoming a legal religion. At the age of fifteen, Martin fulfilled the requirement of joining the cavalry and was stationed in France, where he had the famous vision that is most often told in connection with his name. As the story goes, he ran into a beggar who, in need of clothing, touched Martin’s heart. He then cut his military garment in half and gave the beggar the other part. That night he dreamed of Christ, who was wearing the half-garment that he had given away. According to the story (and there are several variations), Jesus said to him, “Here is Martin, the Roman soldier who is not baptized; he has clad me.”2

Several great works of art show details of the story. Among the most famous is one by the Spanish painter El Greco (1541–1614), St. Martin and the Beggar (ca. 1597–99), which hangs in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. In the painting, Martin is seated on a white horse and looks down at the partially clothed beggar, who looks up at him.

Judgment is based on our response to God’s will as set out in the Scriptures.

Quote: Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis. In the following passage Lewis underlines the biblical reality that we will see eternal consequences for our choices…

When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then . . . ? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realized it or not. Now, today, this moment is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last forever. We must take it or leave it.3

Literature: The Inferno, by Dante Alighieri. The Inferno (Hell) is the first part of the trilogy The Divine Comedy (1308–21), by the Italian poet and philosopher Dante Alighieri (1265–1321). It is about the specific judgments awaiting those who violate God’s law. In one short passage he describes the punishment of one group of “souls.”

This miserable state

Is reserved for the dismal souls of those

Who lived their lives with neither praise nor blame.

They have been mingled with that wicked choir

Of heavenly angels who did not rebel

Nor were they pledged to God, but to themselves.4

Teaching the Text by R.T. France, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Abraham

Abram is a well-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen. 11:25 25:11. Abram’s name (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen. 17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of many nations.”

The narrative account in Genesis details one hundred years of Abraham’s life and moves quickly through the first seventy-five years of events. In just a few verses (11:26–31) we learn that Abram was the son of Terah, the brother of Haran and Nahor, the husband of the barren Sarai (later Sarah), and the uncle of Lot, the son of Haran, who died in Ur of the Chaldees. The plot line marks significant events in Abraham’s life chronologically. He left Harran at the age of 75 (12:4), was 86 when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16), 99 when the Lord appeared to him (17:17) and when he was circumcised (17:24), 100 when Sarah gave birth to Isaac (21:5), and 175 when he died (25:7). In summary, the biblical narrator paces the reader quickly through the story in such a way as to highlight a twenty-five-year period of Abraham’s life between the ages of 75 and 100.

The NT features Abraham in several significant ways. The intimate connection between God and Abraham is noted in the identification of God as “the God of Abraham” in Acts 7:32 (cf. Exod. 3:6). The NT also celebrates the character of Abraham as a man of faith who received the promise (Gal. 3:9; Heb. 6:15). Abraham is most importantly an example of how one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:1, 12) and an illustration of what it means to walk by faith (James 2:21, 23).

Those who exercise faith in the living God, as did Abraham, are referred to as “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Regarding the covenant promises made to Abraham in the OT, the NT writers highlight the promises of seed and blessing. According to Paul, the seed of Abraham is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those who believe in Christ are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). In a similar way, those who have Abraham-like faith are blessed (3:9). The blessing imparted to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through the redemption of Christ and is associated with the impartation of the Spirit (3:14).

Cross

A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.).

Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD.

As for the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion, the OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Father

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).

Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Gate

A controlled point of entry into an otherwise enclosed area such as a city (Gen. 34:24; Ps. 122:2; Acts 9:24), camp (Exod. 32:26 27), tabernacle court (Exod. 35:17), palace (2 Kings 11:19), temple area (Jer. 36:10; Ezek. 40), prison (Acts 12:10), or house (Acts 10:17).

In the OT, the city gate has a central role in that city’s military, economic, judicial, political, and religious aspects of life. A key component of the defense system of a city, the gate consists of doors fortified with bars (Judg. 16:3; Ps. 107:16; Nah. 3:13) and keeps invading armies out while also serving as the point of departure and return for the city’s army (2 Sam. 18:4; cf. God the warrior entering in Ps. 24:7–8). The gate also may serve as the location where news of the battle is delivered (1 Sam. 4:18; 2 Sam. 18:24). The destruction of the city gate usually means the destruction of the city (Isa. 24:12).

In the economic life of the city, the gate functions as a place of commerce (Gen. 23; 2 Kings 7:1) and music (Lam. 5:14). At the entrance to the city gate, the city elders assembled daily to hear cases and render judgment (Job 29:7; Prov. 24:7). Along with the elders, there might be additional witnesses (Ruth 4:1–11; Ps. 69:12). For criminal cases, the gate may also be the location where punishment is enacted (Deut. 17:5; 22:24). Thus, the gate is to be a place where all people can come to obtain justice (2 Sam. 15:2–4; Isa. 29:21; Amos 5:15). The gate may hold a seat reserved for the king (2 Sam. 19:8) as well as the king’s officials (Esther 2:19–21; 3:2–3). The city gate might also contain shrines to various gods (2 Kings 23:8; cf. Acts 14:13).

Some references to gates refer to those of the temple area (Ezek. 44; 46; Pss. 100:4; 118:19–20). In Ezek. 48 the temple area is to have twelve gates, each named after a tribe of Israel (Ezek. 48:30–35; cf. Rev. 21:12–25). The prophet Jeremiah proclaims the word of the Lord from both the city gate(s) (Jer. 17:19–27) and the temple gate(s) (7:1–4).

In the NT, Jesus raises the dead son of a widow at the town gate (Luke 7:11–17) and heals a lame man near the Sheep Gate (John 5:1–15). Peter heals a crippled man near the temple gate (Acts 3:1–10). Jesus mentions gates in his teaching, including a call to enter through the narrow gate of life (Matt. 7:13–14), and his parable of the sheep and the gate, in which Jesus refers to himself as the gate (John 10:1–18). See also City Gates.

Hades

A transliteration of the Greek word referring to the place of the dead. In addition to referring to the place of the dead, the term sometimes is used to signify death itself.

The Greek word hadēs is used ten times in the NT, and English translations vary in their rendering of the term. For example, the NIV translates it as “Hades” (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13 14) or “the realm of the dead” (Acts 2:27, 31). It is occasionally used in conjunction with the idea of a place of punishment or torment (Luke 16:23), though the NT more frequently uses the Greek word geenna (a transliteration of Aramaic) when indicating future punishment in the afterlife. It is much more common to find hadēs associated with death, such as the four occasions in Revelation where the two concepts are linked together (1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14).

Hell

The place where the lost are assigned by God to eternal punishment of both body and soul (Matt. 10:28). This agony of eternal torment in hell is the greatest of all possible tragedies.

This topic of the afterlife unfolded only gradually in Scripture. “Gehenna” originally referred to the Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, the location of the notorious sacrificial offerings of children by fire to the god Molek by Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:6). Later, the meaning of this term was extended to the place of fiery punishment in general. Still later, the geographic location of this place of punishment was shifted to under the earth, but the idea of fiery torment continued. By NT times, the Pharisees clearly believed in the punishment of the wicked in the afterlife.

It is primarily in the teachings of Jesus that the reality of a place of eternal punishment comes into clear focus. Jesus describes hell as involving unquenchable fire (Matt. 18:8 9; Mark 9:42–43, 48), a place where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48). Jesus also pictures the extreme anguish of those who suffer the ultimate punishment of being “thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12).

The idea of a severe eternal punishment for the lost is also taught by the apostles. At the return of Christ, those living outside a proper relationship with God will experience sudden destruction (1 Thess. 5:3) when the angels will come “in blazing fire” and “punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess. 1:6–9). The author of Hebrews speaks of the “fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (Heb. 10:27). Revelation describes how “the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever” (Rev. 14:11), and how the ungodly will be cast into “the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (21:8).

Lazarus

(1) The brother of Mary and Martha and a resident of Bethany, his story is told in John 11:1 44, and he appears again in John 12:1–11 at a supper given in Jesus’ honor. Lazarus is described as one whom “Jesus loved,” prompting speculation that he is to be identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (cf. John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2–3, 8; 21:7, 20–24). When an illness led to Lazarus’s physical death, Jesus traveled to Bethany and grieved. Four days after Lazarus’s death, Jesus asked mourners to remove the tombstone, prayed, and called for Lazarus to come out. Miraculously restored to life, Lazarus emerged from the tomb still wrapped in his grave clothes.

(2) A beggar in one of Jesus’ parables (Luke 16:19–31). Generally, characters in parables are literary creations and remain unnamed. The naming of Lazarus may suggest that he was a historical figure, but it may also serve to emphasize the role reversal between the named Lazarus and the unnamed rich man, who overlooked him in life but sought his aid after death.

Linen

A type of cloth woven with fibers from the flax plant. Common in Palestine and known for its strength, coolness, and remarkable whiteness, linen served many uses, especially in the tabernacle (Exod. 25 28; 35–36; 38–39). Both wealthy and common people wore linen garments, but luxurious fine linens were worn by the rich (Isa. 3:23; Ezek. 16:10; Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12, 16). In NT times, the Jews extensively used linen burial shrouds, as at Jesus’ burial (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40; 20:5–7).

Mercy

Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1 Kings 8:23 24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.

Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35).

Moses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor

Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow.

The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).

Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1 Cor. 11:20 22; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).

Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).

Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1 Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7).

Pray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prophets

A prophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts his message to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in the OT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.” Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he cried out, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template for understanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tell Aaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet’” (Exod. 7:1).

In the NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist could point to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted a famine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10 11).

Paul lists “gifts of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4–11), including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OT prophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not to overdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1 Cor. 14:19–20). Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks of prophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing an authoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach the gospel (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between the ministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be the normative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people to turn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of his return and the final judgment.

Thus, all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they never participate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. The greatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus. John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure, but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection can proclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministry of any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).

Five prophetesses are mentioned in the OT: Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4–5), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chron. 34:22–28), Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3), and Noadiah (Neh. 6:14).

Similarly in the NT, Peter recognizes God’s promise through Joel being fulfilled in the gift of prophetic speech to women as well as men at Pentecost (Acts 2:18); and Paul, acknowledging that women prophesy publicly in the congregation, is concerned only with the manner of their doing so (1 Cor. 11:5). The prophetess Anna proclaims the baby Jesus as the Messiah (Luke 2:36–38), Luke reports that the four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist also prophesy (Acts 21:8–9). The only false prophetess in the NT is the apocalyptic figure of Jezebel in Rev. 2:20.

Purple

Because purple dye was expensive, purple cloth represented wealth (Prov. 31:22; Luke 16:19; Acts 16:14; Rev. 18:16) and authority (Judg. 8:26; Dan. 5:7), especially royalty (Lam. 4:5; cf. Mark 15:20; John 19:2 5). In the tabernacle, temple, and the priestly garments, purple was often combined with blue and scarlet or crimson, themselves symbols of wealth and power (Exod. 26:1; 28:4–15, 33; Num. 4:6–12; 2 Chron. 3:14).

Repent

The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit in this is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a complete turnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning from idols—anything that wrests away the affection that we owe God—to God (1 Sam. 7:3; 2 Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6; 1 Thess. 1:9; James 4:8 10).

Water

Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to its prevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. The cosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:6 7; cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in his cosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).

Water is also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associated with the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple are described as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel 3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowing from beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, where it brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8). The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is also illustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples. Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably the location of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple at Arad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, are located close to freshwater springs. The Gihon spring in the City of David may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf. Gen. 2:13).

This OT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regarding eternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to be the source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone who thirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17). This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 7:38–39).

Water is also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It is extensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT, the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of the believer (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1 Pet. 3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).

Finally, the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water (Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9; 4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Most important, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).

Direct Matches

Abraham's Bosom

Abraham’s bosom (or side) describes God’s blessings after death, using the picture of closeness with Abraham at a banquet (perhaps the messianic banquet [see Isa. 25:6–8]). The image appears in Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:22–23). The bliss enjoyed by Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham stands in sharp contrast to the rich man’s experience of great torment and suffering. This story is helpful for understanding the intensification of blessings for God’s people following death and, similarly, of sufferings for the lost, but it does not describe the full extent of the eternal destinies of heaven and hell.

Angel

The English word “angel” refers to nonhuman spirits, usually good. The biblical words usually translated “angel” (Heb. malak; Gk. angelos) mean “messenger” and can refer to one sent by God or by human beings. A messenger must be utterly loyal, reliable, and able to act confidentially (Prov. 13:17). The messenger speaks and acts in the name of the sender (Gen. 24).

Messengers sent by God are not always angels. Yahweh’s prophets were his messengers (Hag. 1:13), as were priests (Mal. 2:7).

Old Testament

There are few references to angels (plural) in the OT. In heaven they praise God and worship him (Pss. 103:20; 148:2). God sends his angels to accompany his people (Gen. 28:12; 32:1) and to protect them (Ps. 91:11) and once sent them to destroy Egypt (Ps. 78:49).

An angel in human form was referred to as a “man of God” (Judg. 13:6), the same term used for a prophet (cf. 1 Kings 13:14).

Angels evoked fear and wonder. They are described as shining (Matt. 28:3; Acts 12:7). When humans bowed to worship angels, they were rebuked because God alone is to be worshiped (Rev. 22:8–9).

God himself, not being a part of the created order, cannot be seen. In order to communicate with people, he sometimes speaks through a form called “the angel of the Lord.” The angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham in human form (Gen. 18; cf. Josh. 5:13–15), but to Moses as fire (Exod. 3:2). When he spoke, it was God speaking (Exod. 3:4, 14). He guided and guarded Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (23:20–23). He appeared within the pillar of fire or cloud (13:21–22; 14:19), being seen through the pillar on occasion as “the glory of the Lord” (16:7–10; 24:16–17; 33:9–11; 40:17, 34–38), and later as he filled Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 8:11).

In a series of visions of the glory of the Lord (Ps. 18:7–15; Ezek. 1; Rev. 4:7) we encounter four “living creatures” called “cherubim” (Ezek. 10:20–22) that are not explicitly identified as angels and whose visible appearance is part human and part animal. Their form was placed on the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:18) and embroidered on the curtains of the tabernacle (26:1). Cherubim guarded the eastern entry into the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24), implying that Eden, the place where God appeared on earth, was now excluded from the area allocated to humankind.

In Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory, he describes, literally, “flaming ones” (Heb. seraphim) located above God and crying, “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–7). All we know of them is that they had six wings, whereas the cherubim had four (Ezek. 1:11). It may be that seraphim are not a separate class of angels but simply a description appropriate to all angels, since elsewhere we are told (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7) that God’s angels are “flames of fire.”

Angels are also called “holy ones” (Deut. 33:2) and “spirits” or “winds” (Zech. 6:5; cf. Ps. 104:4). Since God’s people are also called “holy ones” (Dan. 7:27; NIV: “holy people”), it may be difficult to know if a given reference is to angels or people (e.g., Deut. 33:3).

Angels are first named in the book of Daniel: Gabriel, whose name means “hero of God” (8:16; 9:21; [cf. Luke 1:19, 26]); Michael, whose name means “who is like God?” (10:13, 21; 12:1 [cf. Jude 9; Rev. 12:7]) and who is also called “one of the chief princes,” “your prince,” and “the great prince.” The Hebrew word for “prince” (sar) also means “commander” (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:55) and thus might refer to Michael’s standing as a commander of God’s angelic armies (cf. Jude 9, where he is called “archangel”). During the intertestamental period, texts outside the Scriptures tend to give more attention to angels in elaborate stories, introducing such names as Raphael and Uriel (see Tobit, 1 Enoch, etc.).

Intertestamental Period and New Testament

During the intertestamental period some Jews came to think that angels ranked higher than humans, since the Greeks asserted that anything physical was evil and only purely spiritual beings could be holy. Increasingly detailed stories about angels served to distance God from the evils of physical reality. The myth of the fall of the angels arose during this time through a series of writings claiming to come from the pen of Enoch (1 Enoch), stimulating a large number of other writings. Some people even went so far as to worship angels (Col. 2:18).

Some references to angels are difficult to understand. In Matt. 18:10 Jesus warns people to treat children well because their angels have constant access to God. The simplest meaning is that angelic messengers will tell God what has happened with these children. Rhoda’s reference to Peter’s “angel” as if it were his ghost probably reflects a local superstition (Acts 12:15) or a sectarian Jewish belief that the righteous become angels when they die. Paul’s comment that a woman should have “authority over her own head” (i.e., her head covered) “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10) remains something of a puzzle, and his unique reference to the language of angels appears to be hyperbole (1 Cor. 13:1).

Paul warns us that Satan can appear as “an angel of light,” meaning that he would work through one who claimed to bring a message in accord with the gospel (2 Cor. 11:14). The devil has his “angels/messengers” (Matt. 25:41), although we know little about them.

Angels do not marry, reproduce, or die (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36). The NT affirms that angels rank below God’s people and serve them (1 Cor. 6:3; Heb.1:4–14; 2:5, 16), as they did Jesus (Matt. 4:11; Mark 1:13; cf. 1 Kings 19:5–7; Luke 22:43). Angels have limited understanding or knowledge of God’s plans and purposes (1 Pet. 1:12), although they reveal God’s word (Rev. 1:1). They bring the spirits of God’s people to heaven when they die (Luke 16:22) and implement God’s judgment on the last day (Matt. 13:39, 49; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; Mark 8:38; 13:27; Luke 9:26; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 14:15–19). They rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10). Christians already stand in the greater assembly that includes the angels (Heb.12:22). Eventually, Jesus will welcome his people into the heavenly courtroom in the presence of the angels (Luke 12:8–9; Rev. 3:5). See also Archangel.

Brothers

Brotherhood and Israelite Identity

Ancient Israelite society was fundamentally organized along the lines of kinship and family. As a result, relations among brothers figure prominently in the biblical construction of Israelite identity, which is conceptualized through a series of fraternal relationships, often rife with conflict: Isaac and Ishmael; Jacob and Esau; and the twelve sons of Jacob, among whom the relationship between Joseph and his brothers is pivotal in the history of Israel. Long after the lifetimes of the patriarchs, the Israelites continued to understand the structure of their society and the relationships between its constituent tribes as a complex of fraternal relationships. The patriarchal stories of Genesis were a mirror of later social and political realities. If the sibling rivalries of antiquity explained competition between later social groups, the memory of the brotherhood of those groups also provided a basis for solidarity both within Israel (“You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” [Deut. 17:15 ESV]) and with near neighbors (“You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother” [Deut. 23:7 ESV]). Similarly, the fraternal relationship between Moses and Aaron endured in later Israelite society as a model for synthesizing distinct strands of the religion into a coherent whole.

For later Israelite readers of the Bible, the brotherly relationships of Genesis and Exodus were not simply stories about dead ancestors; rather, they provided a compelling account of the organization of Israelite society as they knew it (see Zech. 11:14) and of the relationship between Israel and its neighbors, several of which were descended from the brothers of the Israelite patriarchs (see Ps. 83:6; Amos 1:11; Obad. 10; Mal. 1:2–4). Even though Hiram and Solomon did not trace their relationship back to a common ancestor, they extended the language of the brother alliance to their own (1 Kings 9:12–13).

Biblical literature cultivates a predilection for the underdog, elevating a long series of younger, disadvantaged brothers: the heroes of Israel included Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Gideon (Judg. 6:15), and David (1 Sam. 16:11).

The brother’s wife represented a special case. Sexual relations with a brother’s wife were strictly forbidden (Lev. 18:16; 20:21; see also Mark 6:18), but under certain circumstances one was compelled to marry a brother’s widow (Deut. 25:5–9; see variations of this practice in Gen. 38:8; Ruth 4:5–6). This custom underlay a question that Jesus was asked concerning seven brothers, each of whom died, repeatedly widowing the same woman (Matt. 22:24; Mark 6:17; Luke 14:26).

Brothers in the New Testament

Among Jesus’ twelve disciples were several pairs of brothers, including Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:16 pars.) and James and John the sons of Zebedee (Mark 1:19). Jesus himself had brothers (Mark 3:31–35; John 7:3–5; Acts 1:14), including James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Mark 6:3; see also Gal. 1:19).

In addition to the story of seven brothers mentioned above, several of Jesus’ teachings drew illustrations from the relationship of brothers, including the stories of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32) and of the rich man and Lazarus (see Luke 16:28). Jesus singled out the belittling of a brother as a particularly heinous sin (Matt. 5:22). In the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, “brother” stands not only for a literal brother but also more generally for one’s fellow human.

In light of the OT conception of Israel as a nation of brothers (see Deut. 17:15 and the discussion above), it is not surprising that Jesus and the NT authors adopted the language of brotherhood to describe the Christian community. The “brotherhood of believers” (1 Pet. 2:17 NIV 1984) derives from the common brotherhood of Christians with Christ himself. Brotherhood with Christ depends not on physical descent but on a shared commitment to obedience to God (Matt. 12:50; 23:8), and this loyalty is deeper than that of the literal family, such that it can turn “brother against brother” (Mark 13:12).

The predominant form of address in the NT Epistles is “brothers,” and in Acts the Christians are most commonly designated as “the brothers.” Paul also refers to fellow Jews, including non-Christians, as his “brothers” (Acts 22:1; Rom. 9:3 ESV). See also Brotherly Love.

Father's House

Old Testament. In ancient Israel, and more broadly in the surrounding region, the “father’s house” (i.e., ancestral family) was the basic unit of kinship, more extensive than “brothers” (Gen. 46:31; Judg. 16:31) or the single “household” (Exod. 12:3) but smaller than the clan and tribe (note the contrasts in, e.g., Num. 1:2; Judg. 6:15). In genealogies the “father’s house” is often rendered “family” (e.g., Exod. 6:14; Num. 1:2 and throughout the chapter; 1 Chron. 4:38). In some instances, the twelve tribes of Israel are construed as father’s houses (Num. 17:2–6; 1 Sam. 2:28). In 2 Sam. 19:28 the extent of the “father’s house” is well illustrated: clearly, Mephibosheth refers not to the nuclear family of his biological father but rather to the family of his grandfather Saul. In 1 Chron. 23:11, two small families are artificially combined into a single “father’s house,” illustrating that the concept was not strictly biological but instead corresponded to a set of social functions, in this case priestly service.

In addition to censuses and the organization of military service, other functions of the father’s house included the reckoning of collective guilt (2 Sam. 14:9; 24:17; Neh. 1:6), delimiting retaliation in kin-based blood feuds (1 Sam. 22:16, 22; 2 Sam. 3:29; see also Judg. 2:12, 18), and defining a context for endogamous marriage (Gen. 24:38–40). The father’s house played an important role in the life of women, who were identified with their father’s house before marriage and could return to it in the event of widowhood, demonstrating a persistent connection to it (Lev. 22:13; Num. 30:4, 16; Deut. 22:21; Judg. 19:2–3; Esther 4:14; Ps. 45:10; see also the political significance for Abimelek of his mother’s father’s house in Judg. 9:1).

The expression “father’s house” can also refer to a location (Gen. 12:1; 20:13; Judg. 14:19; 1 Sam. 18:2), and indeed this local sense may have largely overlapped with the kinship sense, as extended families inhabited large architectural compounds or even entire small villages.

New Testament. On two occasions Jesus referred to the temple in Jerusalem as his “father’s house,” once when he was a young man (Luke 2:49), and once when he drove merchants from the temple (John 2:16). On another occasion, he referred to a “place where I am going” as “my father’s house” (John 14:2–4). In addition, we have two references to the “father’s house” as a kinship unit (Luke 16:27; and possibly Acts 7:20).-

Gulf

A large inlet of an ocean similar to a bay but generally longer and more enclosed by land. The term appears only once in the NIV, with reference to the “gulf of the Egyptian Sea” (Isa. 11:15). The term is also used in the KJV in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus for the “chasm” (NIV; NRSV) that separates the rich man’s place of torment from Lazarus’s place of bliss at Abraham’s side (Luke 16:26).

Hades

A transliteration of the Greek word referring to the place of the dead. In addition to referring to the place of the dead, the term sometimes is used to signify death itself. During the OT period the Hebrew term she’ol was used to indicate the realm of the dead, and when the OT was translated into Greek, the translators employed the term hadēs when rendering she’ol. In the OT both righteous (Gen. 37:35) and unrighteous (Num. 16:30, 33) individuals go to Hades/Sheol at death. It is also usually specified as being located in a downward direction (Ps. 55:15; Isa. 14:15). Throughout apocryphal and other intertestamental Jewish literature, hadēs appears very frequently (e.g., Tob. 3:10; Sir. 21:10; Sibylline Oracles).

The Greek word hadēs is used ten times in the NT, and English translations vary in their rendering of the term. For example, the NIV translates it as “Hades” (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14) or “the realm of the dead” (Acts 2:27, 31). It is occasionally used in conjunction with the idea of a place of punishment or torment (Luke 16:23), though the NT more frequently uses the Greek word geenna (a transliteration of Aramaic) when indicating future punishment in the afterlife. It is much more common to find hadēs associated with death, such as the four occasions in Revelation where the two concepts are linked together (1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14). See also Gehenna; Hell.

Lazarus

(1) The brother of Mary and Martha and a resident of Bethany, his story is told in John 11:1–44, and he appears again in John 12:1–11 at a supper given in Jesus’ honor. Lazarus is described as one whom “Jesus loved,” prompting speculation that he is to be identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (cf. John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2–3, 8; 21:7, 20–24). When an illness led to Lazarus’s physical death, Jesus traveled to Bethany and grieved. Four days after Lazarus’s death, Jesus asked mourners to remove the tombstone, prayed, and called for Lazarus to come out. Miraculously restored to life, Lazarus emerged from the tomb still wrapped in his grave clothes.

Later, Lazarus attended a banquet in honor of Jesus, where some were drawn to see him in addition to Jesus. Lazarus’s miraculous resurrection prompted many Jews to believe in Jesus. According to Eusebius, the tomb of Lazarus was a pilgrimage site for Christians in his day, and tradition about its location stems from an early date.

(2) A beggar in one of Jesus’ parables (Luke 16:19–31). Generally, characters in parables are literary creations and remain unnamed. The naming of Lazarus may suggest that he was a historical figure, but it may also serve to emphasize the role reversal between the named Lazarus and the unnamed rich man, who overlooked him in life but sought his aid after death.

Life

Life is a complex, multifaceted concept in the Bible. Various Hebrew and Greek terms convey the idea of life. Life is described in both a natural and a theological sense.

Life in the Natural Sense

In its natural sense, “life” may convey the following: (1) the vital principle of animals and humans, (2) the length of time that one has life, (3) the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime, or (4) the means for maintaining life.

First, life is the vital principle of animals and humans. This use of the term is its popular sense. It refers to the quality of having an animate existence or the state of being animate. Therefore, it is expressed in terms of ability or power; one who has life has the power to act. On the other hand, “death” is its antonym; one who is dead no longer acts. In the Bible, life in this sense applies to both animals and humans; however, the quality of life differs because humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6). Life is manifested in the breath of life, so that one who no longer has the breath of life no longer has life (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; Job 12:10; 27:3; Rev. 11:11). At the same time, life is seated in the blood. For this reason, blood should not be consumed but should instead be poured out and buried (Gen. 9:3–5; Lev. 17:10–16; Deut. 12:23–25). Although life may cease because of physical causes (whether disease, murder, accident, etc.), God is ultimately the Lord of life. He gives life through his breath of life (Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:4–14); he sustains life through his spirit (Ps. 104:29–30; cf. Gen. 6:3; 1 Cor. 15:45); he delivers from death (Gen. 5:24; Ps. 30:3; 1 Cor. 15); he gives life and puts to death (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6). Life, therefore, is first and foremost a gift from God.

In a discussion of life as the vital principle, it is important to address the question of the afterlife. The Bible affirms the significance of both the material and the immaterial components of a human being. The body is not merely a shell in which the true person is housed. Death is not the soul’s escape from the body’s prison, as evidenced by the resurrection of the dead (Ezek. 37:1–14; Dan. 12:2; Luke 14:14; 1 Cor. 15). Human beings are not created to live a disembodied existence ultimately. The fate for those who experience eternal life is the resurrection of the body made from an incorruptible source (1 Cor. 15, esp. vv. 42–50). For others, their fate lies in eternal death (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:6–15; 21:8).

Second, in both Testaments, “life” may also refer to the duration of animate existence—one’s lifetime. The duration of one’s life in this sense begins at birth and ends at death (Gen. 23:1; 25:7; 47:9, 28; Luke 16:25; Heb. 2:15). This period of time is brief (Ps. 90:10; James 4:14). The Bible describes two ways that one’s lifetime may be extended: first, God gives additional time to a person’s life (2 Kings 20:6; Ps. 61:6; Isa. 38:5); second, one gains longer life by living wisely and honoring God (Prov. 3:2; 4:10; 9:11; 10:27).

Third, sometimes “life” refers to the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime. In other words, “life” may refer to all a person’s activities and relationships (1 Sam. 18:18 KJV; Job 10:1; Luke 12:15; James 4:14).

Fourth, “life” rarely may refer to the means of livelihood (Deut. 24:6; Prov. 27:27; Matt. 6:25; Luke 12:22–23). These passages highlight two aspects of life in this sense: (1) people are responsible to guard life; (2) God gives this life because of his great concern, which exceeds his care for the birds and flowers.

Life as a Theological Concept

Beyond its natural sense, life is developed as a theological concept throughout the Bible.

Old Testament. The first chapters of Genesis set the stage for a rich theological understanding of life. First, God creates all things and prepares them for his purposes. He is the creator of life, and life is a gift from his hand. The pinnacle of his creative activity is the creation of humankind. God blesses the man (Adam) and the woman (Eve) whom he creates. God prepares a special place, a garden, for them, so that they may be able to live in perfect communion with him, under his blessing. At the center of the garden lies the tree of life. The tree of life demonstrates that the garden is both the sphere of God’s provision and the symbol of life itself. At the same time, God commands the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen. 2:17).

At this point, life and death take center stage. What follows in the narrative (Gen. 3) is a presentation of the meaning of life and death as theological concepts. Adam and Eve disobey the divine commandment. As a result, they die. However, their death is not death in the natural sense. Instead, when they disobey God’s commandment, there are three results: (1) a curse is pronounced, (2) they are exiled from the garden away from God, and (3) they are prevented from eating from the tree of life (3:14–24). Death in this case is not ceasing to breathe and move but is curse and exile; in other words, to die is to be removed from the place of God’s presence and blessing and be placed under a curse. Life, then, is the opposite: to live is to be settled in the place of God’s presence and blessing.

It is also important to recognize in this narrative that obedience to God’s commandment leads to life, but disobedience to his commandment leads to death. This principle is picked up throughout the Bible. Its clearest expression is found in Lev. 18:5: “Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them.”

This narrative also draws an important connection taken up in other parts of the Bible, especially Proverbs: the connection between life and wisdom. In the garden there are two trees at the center: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Although there is some question concerning what is precisely meant by the knowledge of good and evil, it is likely that wisdom is in view. Two pieces of evidence support this conclusion: (1) knowledge and wisdom as well as good and evil are central concerns for the book of Proverbs; (2) the narrative associates the tree with wisdom. When Eve considers eating from the tree, she notices that it is like the other trees in that it has a pleasant appearance and is good for food (Gen. 2:9), but it is also distinct from the other trees because it is desirable for making one wise (3:6). By eating the fruit, she and Adam attempt to gain wisdom contrary to God’s command. As a result, this type of wisdom leads to death. However, true wisdom has the opposite effect. It leads to life, being a tree of life itself (esp. Prov. 3:18; also 3:1–2; 4:10–23; 6:23).

Although these themes—life, blessing, obedience, and wisdom—are found in various places throughout the Bible, they come together most explicitly in Deuteronomy. There devotion and obedience to God are viewed as the means of attaining wisdom and understanding (Deut. 4:5–9). Following God leads to living in the land that God had promised and enjoying his blessings there (28:1–14); however, forsaking God leads to all kinds of curses and ultimately to utter defeat and exile from the land (28:15–68). The choice to follow God and obey him or to forsake God and disobey him results in either life or death, good or bad, blessing or curse (30:15–20).

Life as a theological concept therefore has the following characteristics: being in the presence of God rather than exile, and experiencing his blessings rather than his curses. Such life may be attained through devotion and obedience to God and through the wisdom that comes from God.

New Testament. This concept of life forms the background for that of the NT as well. The NT often speaks of eternal life, especially in the writings of John. Eternal life is being in fellowship with God the Father and Jesus Christ (John 17:3). One may experience eternal life before natural death and beyond it into the eternal future (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:54; 10:28). At the same time, eternal life may refer more narrowly only to the time of perfect fellowship with God that lies beyond natural life (Matt. 25:46; Mark 10:30; Rom. 2:7). Because life consists of being in fellowship with God and living in his blessings, John can state that the one who believes in Jesus “has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24). In other words, the person who believes in Jesus has been transferred from God’s curse to his blessing, from death to life. Furthermore, Jesus declares that he is life, and that those who believe in him will live and not die; that is, they will never be removed from his presence and blessing (John 11:25–26).

Linen

A type of cloth woven with fibers from the flax plant. Common in Palestine and known for its strength, coolness, and remarkable whiteness, linen served many uses, especially in the tabernacle (Exod. 25–28; 35–36; 38–39). Both wealthy and common people wore linen garments, but luxurious fine linens were worn by the rich (Isa. 3:23; Ezek. 16:10; Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12, 16). In NT times, the Jews extensively used linen burial shrouds, as at Jesus’ burial (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40; 20:5–7).

Purple

Because purple dye was expensive, purple cloth represented wealth (Prov. 31:22; Luke 16:19; Acts 16:14; Rev. 18:16) and authority (Judg. 8:26; Dan. 5:7), especially royalty (Lam. 4:5; cf. Mark 15:20; John 19:2–5). In the tabernacle, temple, and the priestly garments, purple was often combined with blue and scarlet or crimson, themselves symbols of wealth and power (Exod. 26:1; 28:4–15, 33; Num. 4:6–12; 2 Chron. 3:14). See also Colors.

Sore

(1) A painful breakage in the skin caused by a disease or wound that often becomes infected. Various skin ailments described in Hebrew vocabulary may be translated as “sore”: skin disorder (garab [Lev. 21:20; 22:22; Deut. 28:27]); moist wound (makkah teriyyah [Isa. 1:6]); boil, ulcer (mazor [2 Sam. 3:29; Jer. 30:13]); infected sore (nega’ [Lev. 13:3, 5, 29]); tumor, hemorrhoid (tekhorim [Deut. 28:27; 1 Sam. 5:6]); infectious skin disease, traditionally, though not necessarily correctly, translated as “leprosy” (tsara’at [e.g., Lev. 13:2–3, 8–9; 14:3, 7; Deut. 24:8; 2 Kings 5:6–7; 2 Chron. 26:9); skin sore or boil (shekhin [Exod. 9:9–11; Lev. 13:18–20, 23; Deut. 28:35; 2 Kings 20:7; Job 2:7; Isa. 38:21]); seeping sore, wart (yabbelet [Lev. 22:22]).

In contrast, NT Greek uses a single root, helkos, to refer to a sore, boil, skin abscess, ulcer (Luke 16:20–21; Rev. 16:2, 11). Sores are significant under Mosaic law, since certain types render one ritually unclean and therefore separated from community life (Lev. 13–14).

(2) A painfully tender physical discomfort (Gen. 34:25). (3) An archaic usage in older English versions that describes intensive upset or affliction (e.g., Gen. 20:8; 41:56–57; Josh. 9:24; Matt. 17:6; Acts 20:37 KJV).

Table

From the Latin word tabula (“board”), “table” first denoted any flat surface, but especially one of wood or stone used for writing (Exod. 20:2–17). The Ten Commandments were originally inscribed upon two tables of stone. Eventually “table” in this sense was replaced by “tablet” (see Tablet).

Tables were used for eating, working, and displaying objects: domestic tables (Judg. 1:7; 1 Sam. 20:29), temple tables of Yahweh (2 Chron. 4:8; Ezek. 40:39–43) or of heathen gods (Isa. 65:11), the “Lord’s table” (Mal. 1:7, 12), and the table for the bread of the Presence in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:23–30; 1 Kings 7:48; Heb. 9:2).

Tables found in the ancient Near East usually stood no more than eighteen inches high. Most were made of wood (2 Kings 4:10), but the wealthy had tables of ornate stone. It was a great honor to be invited to eat at or be given food from the king’s table (2 Sam. 9:7, 10–13; 1 Kings 2:7; 4:27; Dan. 1:5). The custom of the rich reclining on couches around a low table (Amos 6:4; cf. 3:12) became commonplace in NT times. Although dining at a table was customary (Luke 22:21; Acts 6:2), to eat under the table was for dogs and the despised (Judg. 1:7; Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke 16:21). Money changers used tables as stands where money was exchanged (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15).

Figuratively, “table” was used to represent the meal on which it was served. In the ancient Near East, eating with others expressed intimate fellowship and trust, yet Jesus shared table fellowship with Judas (Luke 22:21). At the Lord’s Table (i.e., Communion, Eucharist), Jesus is the host, who invites us to remember him as we eat (1 Cor. 10:21; 11:23–26). The imagery of a banquet table of thanksgiving is used to depict God’s provision for his people (Pss. 23:5; 78:19).

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Luke 16:19-31 is mentioned in the definition.

Abode of the Dead

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life, wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such as respiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequately encompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

The Beginning of Death

Death is introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of the divine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells the first man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you will certainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a useful basis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First, as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor the woman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eating the fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblical notion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointing to the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation and separation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed by Jesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and by Paul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sins and transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the common punishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen. 9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss of access to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first man and woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, but their fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and the intimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second, the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, as originally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortal in the same manner as God (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), but rather that they were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death but sustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through the provision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once they were cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

The account of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us little about how death affected animals, since the Bible consistently presents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirms human ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans and animals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is not entirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sin for humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to the fall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortality prior to the fall.

Death in the Old Testament

Death is frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from its initial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presented as that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss. 18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the author of Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines any possible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). The tragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, from God (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and from people. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality and profundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17; cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present death more positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlight the appalling circumstances of the speaker’s life rather than any blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, see Rev. 9:6).

The OT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a good death as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. So Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17) are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, some passages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,” suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death, presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead are never explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death within language used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Although there are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of the dead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show that burial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23; cf. 1 Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriate burial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillborn child is better off than someone who lives a long life but receives no burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation of those not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16; 16:4).

Life after Death in the Old Testament

Belief in some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of the ancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to the state of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoing existence that could even surpass what one may have experienced before death (although such an opportunity was a reasonable expectation only for the upper classes, while the general population probably had more modest expectations of the nature of their existence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefs depicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but the very few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensure them some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there was little hope for any positive experience following death.

The OT, however, has little to say about the state of those who have died. The widespread belief in some form of continued existence beyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in the absence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probably assumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death. Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, such as the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as “gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead (sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spirits of the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generally described as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, there are prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death (e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’s death (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Death in the New Testament

The NT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view of death presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence of and punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity is stated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by the notion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead in their sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death, according to Paul, is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), and yet to die is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being with Christ, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” than being alive in this body in this world.

Central to both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death in the Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’ death provides the basis for countering the consequences of the original rebellion against God by the first couple (2 Cor. 5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itself destroyed death (2 Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesus offers—eternal life—is available to the believer in the present (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimately abolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe in him will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

The NT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the dead from the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearly presented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of the existence of distinctions among those who have died, such that the rich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used in the LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus is far off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a danger in reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflect something of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among some in Jesus’ day.

The NT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to the state of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from which there will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ will not experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwelling place with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

Baptism for the Dead

Baptism for the dead is a mysterious practice mentioned in Paul’s argument for the reality of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:29–34. There is no mention of this elsewhere in Scripture. Although a number of different explanations have been offered for this practice, the usual understanding is that some people in Corinth had been baptized on behalf of those who had already died. There is nothing in Paul’s argument suggesting that he supported or approved of this practice, or even that believers themselves were necessarily involved in this practice (note that in this passage he speaks of “those,” not “we”). Paul simply used this illustration as another logical argument against those who denied the bodily resurrection. In essence, Paul argued, “If you do not believe in the resurrection, why are you so concerned about the dead?”

Baptism for the dead has been practiced by a few splinter groups throughout history and since 1840 by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The goal of this practice is to provide a means for making a public profession of faith for a friend or loved one who has died without being baptized in order to make possible that person’s salvation. Yet this practice is built on a serious misunderstanding of both salvation and baptism. The standard Christian understanding is that one’s eternal destiny is set at the time of death (see Luke 16:26).

Books of Moses

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greek words (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case, book”]) and is a designation attested in the early church fathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “Five Books of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the “Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,” meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah is the first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for both Jewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to the Bible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

The English names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the Latin Vulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainly descriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations” or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,” Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers to the censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “second law” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands (see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening words in each book. Bereshit (Genesis) means “in the beginning”; Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’ (Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “in the desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] the words.”

Referring to the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law” reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at Mount Sinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in the promised land, including their journey to get there. However, calling the Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading because there are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands, and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuch is a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creation of the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallen world through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualities and content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another, as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesis ends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years have passed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic life at the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even begins without a clear subject (“And he called . . .”), which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from the last verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’s fighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of the promised land.

Authorship and Composition

Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses” (e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:15).

Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial are referenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory was crystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh” is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim” and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text; observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.

In its canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artistic prose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousands of years. One could divide the story into six major sections: primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’ farewell (Deuteronomy).

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

It is possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subject matter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, and punishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that would become God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world (chaps. 12–50).

The primeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictly speaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixth instance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencing Abraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot (“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven places in Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one may use to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesis as we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its first two chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differing accounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it is just as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in style and some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims. The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic, symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by a transcendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the second account, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as he is present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils, dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side, and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundational for providing an accurate view of God’s interaction with creation in the rest of Scripture.

As one progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changes from what God has established as “very good” to discord, sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanity as Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in direct disobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple, and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend to unlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationship between God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strife between humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as one moves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to the flood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have so pervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all living things, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark full of animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblical narrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood as he commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noah fulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembers his promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as the creation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restated along with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image (1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities and stipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will be enmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food, and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requires accountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood and orderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now he relinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, God promises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set the rainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant with Noah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfilling commands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17), specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

The primeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition (e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and his son Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal his father’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, and subduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates to make a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heaven within a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans by scattering the people across the earth and confusing their language. Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower of Babel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straight with humanity.

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Although the primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchal figures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamic narrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as a transition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Joseph narrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

The transition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32) reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east and settles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. In Harran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan, which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land, make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as a conduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is the indication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah) relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How one becomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is to bless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compelling question of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange between Abraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenant fulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. It is there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test as God asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passes God’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’s place. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by the sign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generations through Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf. 15:1–21; 17:1–27).

The patriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises are renewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14) and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac serves mainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as a passive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception, struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative, as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’s womb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for the firstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram (northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservants as concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-out with his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’s blessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestling encounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victorious and receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel” (“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacob story, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant and reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps. 28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thus enveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau (chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from the episodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through the lives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remain secure.

Although Jacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends for them to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation before fulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16). The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at the close of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, which elicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off to some nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wild beast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventually becomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later, Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royal court, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotional reunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for a time in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph story illustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divine sovereignty (50:20).

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesis shows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how this family becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught the ways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a riveting story of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity and power of God that take center stage.

Many years have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. The Hebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as their multiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—just as God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became a national threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spend time in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessions in hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

In the book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as the vehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Moses is an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentially avoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’s household. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and he kills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees to obscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead his people out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Like the days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people in Egypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and his personal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses in the great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), the same place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubts his own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh and leading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs and wonders not only will make the escape possible but also will ultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, and presumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

This promise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance is succinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that finds significance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great power over nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favor for his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenth plague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for the Passover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to the placement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes. Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in the desert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, but the Egyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvation event of the OT.

The song of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quickly turns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodus as the people of the nation, grumbling about their circumstances in the desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one who has saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of water and food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care proves shallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks of God’s protection have been evident in the wilderness through the pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision of manna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses, the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience (16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his people through the leadership of Moses.

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Most of the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is there that Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for the tabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and other covenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. The eleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through the center of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before the nation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness. Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall within the Sinai story: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod. 25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), the manual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27).

The events and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelite religious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that God establishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, whereby the Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant [Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13, 19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view in this portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual prophetic function of representing the people when speaking with God and, in turn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowed upon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within one of the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). The giving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the Sabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known” to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see, e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

The Israelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatest theophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod. 19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24). After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”) directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Moses mediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern the future life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonial fashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that has been spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) with whom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that the Israelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue by fashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them from Egypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling in jeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciously promises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, even while punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’s relationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodus ends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’s presence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood and its rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divine instructions for how a sinful people may live safely in close proximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin and minimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. The sacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on a worldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterize a people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). With these rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations to depart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10 spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelites begin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflect a census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication of the tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencing the quest to Canaan.

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

The rest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-year stretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of the nation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show the exodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36 reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares for the conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodes involving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters (27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turned to the future possession of the land.

After the departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number of Israelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tired of manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall as free fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship of life in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now the nation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes so overwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God provides seventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, will receive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

In chapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea to peruse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure the land from the mighty people there proves costly. This final example of distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. The unbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-year period of wandering.

The discontent in the desert involves not only food and water but also leadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent his special relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority. Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as another Levitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence of signs and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron have exclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related to Korah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent the tribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinction in the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternal covenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). He and the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and as part of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keeping the tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Even after the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, God continues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored for the nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed from the mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeed one day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), be blessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). This wonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation is tragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in the subsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf, when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interaction with God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’s oracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women not only joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’s holiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plague could have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas is awarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation and Aaron’s priestly lineage.

In chapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old, unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except for Joshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. God dispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribal boundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service, and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters 26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nation optimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promised land.

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Although one could reasonably move into the historical books at the end of Numbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to a nation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewed as sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, love their God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings (30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai (chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations for lawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code is recorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law” (31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king. Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32) before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34), including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomy reflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a right heart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence of covenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with the frequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to him alone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments (chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect the great Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, not cold and superficial religiosity.

Obedience by the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereas disobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses strongly commends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in a covenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the future the Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations and will suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17). Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts (10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In the future a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as well as a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thus underscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchal promises despite the sinful nature of his people.

For much of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy has received a significant amount of attention for its apparent resemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyrian treaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it is possible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty form between Israel and God much like the common format between nations in the ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of this type can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to be conservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy is not a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’s redemptive interaction with the world.

Death

The Beginning of Death

Death in the Old Testament

Life after Death in the Old Testament

Death in the New Testament

Dives

The name popularly given to the rich man in Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). However, “Dives” is actually not a proper name but rather is the Latin word for “rich man,” which occurs in the Vulgate translation of the story. In the Greek text of the story, this character is unnamed.

Downsizing

The reduction of expenditure and consumption. Solomon is presented as the extremity of excess, which contributed to turning his attention away from God, a form of idolatry (1 Kings 11; cf. Exod. 20:3; Matt. 6:24; 1 Tim. 6:6–10). Jesus rebukes those who follow this example, because they lack awareness of others’ needs (Luke 12:16–21; 16:19–31). To those with more he says, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matt. 6:19). The commandment reminds the disciple that material possessions fall apart, particularly when unused, and that the means available for satisfying human wants are scarce in comparison to the extent of those wants. People covet (Exod. 20:17), and when they reach a threshold of desperation, many steal, which causes those enslaved to their wealth to live in constant fear of losing it. The solution is to be content with God meeting our basic needs and to share when we have an abundance.

Dyed

The craft of applying dyes in order to permanently color textiles. The Bible often speaks of dyed materials, though not of the dyeing process itself. While many dye colors were obtained from plants, animals, and minerals, the Bible usually refers to the colors blue, scarlet, and purple. These three colors figured prominently in the early Israelite tabernacle and priestly garb (Exod. 25–28; 35–39). They were also used in King Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 2:7, 14) and for royalty (2 Sam. 1:24; Esther 8:15).

The ancient source of blue, according to the Talmud, is a mysterious sea creature, the hilazon. The hilazon’s exact identity is unknown, though it is believed by some Jews to be the only true source for dyeing parts of their prayer shawls (Num. 15:37–40).

Scarlet comes from the kermes worm, which can be found in various oak trees in Israel. Once dried, the female’s eggs or the ensuing larvae are crushed, producing a few drops of the rich red color.

Purple was the most prized and expensive of the three colors because of the effort involved in production and the dye’s quality (cf. Lam. 4:5; Dan. 5:7; Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12). Also known as “Tyrian purple” or “imperial purple,” the dye came from the smelly flesh of the murex and purpura mollusks. Each specimen produced only a scarce amount of the precious purple substance. And while cheaper imitations eventually were produced, none could rival the quality or durability of the dye that was literally worth its weight in gold.

Dyeing

Scarlet comes from the kermes worm, which can be found in various oak trees in Israel. Once dried, the female’s eggs or the ensuing larvae are crushed, producing a few drops of the rich red color.

Everlasting Punishment

Jesus refers to hell more often than any other NT figure. Hell is where people go if their righteousness does not surpass the false piety of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Matt. 5:22, 29–30; 7:19; cf. Mark 9:43–47). People go to hell when they persist in choosing sin, self, and safety over the call to discipleship, whatever the latter’s immediate consequences (Matt. 10:28; 18:9; Luke 12:5; 16:23). Peter says that false prophets will go to hell (2 Pet. 2). Hell is also the place prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41; cf. Rev. 12:9; 19:20; 20:10). Jesus uses the images of fire and outer darkness to capture the agonies of hell. John sees hell as a “lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:10) and a “lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14–15). The biblical writers always assume, and sometimes openly proclaim, that God will pour out his wrath upon all sin—that is, upon either a vicarious substitute (Jesus Christ) or unbelieving sinners themselves; and hell is where God does this fully and finally.

Some theologians worry that this doctrine might undercut God’s perfection, believing that he cannot be maximally loving if he also sends people to hell. But since the Bible says, in stark and unambiguous terms, that he will do so, several interpretation strategies have been suggested, each of which intends to soften this doctrine. God will punish people in hell, it is conceded, but their punishment either annihilates them, or lasts for a limited time, or is strictly and eternally voluntary. None of these alternatives, however, agrees with the biblical witness. The first option collides with the fact that sinners weep and gnash their teeth in hell (Matt. 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28), longing for some relief from its miseries (Luke 16:22–24). At the very least, we can say that hell does not annihilate anyone straightaway: unrepentant sinners suffer in hell for at least some duration, leaving aside the question of how long they do so. But even the second option, that of a limited time in hell, carries a heavy burden of proof, since the Bible draws a parallel between the durations of joy and punishment in the afterlife (Matt. 25:41; Mark 9:47–48). In Rev. 20:10 the devil and his angels are “tormented day and night for ever and ever,” and the place of their punishment is also where sinners go (cf. Rev. 14:9–11).

The third option, that people stay in hell forever because they will never repent, fares somewhat better compared to the first two. The book of Revelation makes it clear that some sinners never repent. Neither great suffering (Rev. 9:20–21; 16:9, 11) nor seasons of providentially secured bliss (Rev. 20:7–10) turn them away from sin, so great is the depth of human depravity. Nevertheless, this interpretation tells only half the story. On one level, perhaps the bars of hell are locked from the inside; but the Scriptures also represent hell as a prison into which sinners are cast or locked, and it is a place where God actively pours out his righteous wrath against sin. Nothing happens in the universe apart from God’s sovereign will (versus his moral will, which often is violated), and he takes personal responsibility for the punishment of the wicked (Rev. 6:10; 19:1–3; cf. Rom. 12:19). He is indeed the God of “second chances,” but the latter will run out someday, and then “all the peoples of the earth will mourn” when they “see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30). By then, it is too late to repent.

The doctrine of everlasting punishment reminds us that God’s moral perfection is not maximal niceness, as if any form of happiness preferred by sinners would satisfy him too. On the contrary, he is extreme in both his justice and his love; and neither of these attributes is reducible to the other. In fact, we can celebrate God’s love and mercy properly only when we have seen the awful punishment that his justice requires of our sin. This doctrine also constitutes a strong motive to preach the good news to lost sinners, who, outside of Christ, will suffer eternally. See also Gehenna; Hell.

Jesus Christ

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Identity of Jesus Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

Nativity of Christ

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

Introduction

Jesus’ Life

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

Parable

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1 Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth such that the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1. The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2. Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circumstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3. Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4. Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5. In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

Patriarch

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.”

Pentateuch

Authorship and Composition

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Poor in Spirit

In the Bible, the “poor” may also be understood as “beggars,” describing those in an extreme state of deprivation, destitute, completely dependent on others for survival (Exod. 23:11; Isa. 14:30; Luke 16:20). Jesus pronounces blessing upon the “poor in spirit” and claims that they possess the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:3; cf. Luke 6:20). The qualifier “in spirit” invites disciples to see God as their merciful provider and, in turn, to extend that mercy to others (Matt. 6:1–4).

Showing 1 to 50 of276 results

1. The Stopped Up Dam

Illustration

Richard Patt

There was a beautiful lake that lost its zesty freshness. The water formerly had been clear. It was alluring to animals and people alike. But it became covered with a green scum. The farm animals became ill from drinking the water. Finally someone came by the lake who understood the problem. Debris collecting from the hard spring rains had stopped up the dam and prevented the free flow of water, not into the lake, but out of the lake. The spillway was cleared, and soon the lake was fresh and clean again. The flow in and out was necessary to keep the water pure!

Doesn't the same principle apply to you and me as human beings? The blessings of life flow to you and me, but we fail to realize that most of these blessings are not meant just to flow to us, but through us, for the good of others around us, especially for those in need.

2. Desire Obscures Knowledge

Illustration

John G. Lynch

Many years ago a missionary returned from India. He noted a big difference between the Jewish-Christian religious tradition and that of the Hindus. The Hindu scriptures encourage the stifling of all desire. The god Krishna says, "Kill the enemy menacing you in the form of desire. Desire obscures knowledge like dirt in a mirror."

3. Drowsy Living

Illustration

Carveth Mitchell

There is a sign series on the West Virginia Turnpike that says, "Driving while drowsy can put you to sleep - permanently." Drowsy, uncaring living can put us to sleep - permanently. That kind of person, Jesus says, is separating himself from God until it becomes permanent, by digging a chasm between himself and heaven that even the love of God cannot bridge.

4. I Never Lived

Illustration

W. Robert McClelland

A woman in the hospital was weeping after being told she was terminally ill with cancer. When a friend sought to console her she replied, "I'm not weeping because I'm dying. I'm weeping because I never lived." The awareness of limits and wasted time means we can take up a conscious stance with regard to our own inevitable mortality. It is this mature insight that will protect us from slavishly following what the culture wants us to do and squandering our time in seeking the approval of others by conforming to their rules and values.

5. The Growing Gap in America

Illustration

Will Willimon

In the early 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting our young nation, was struck by the "general equality of condition among American people." Few were very rich, and few were terribly poor, and de Tocqueville felt that this was fertile soil for the development of true democracy.

Somewhere between there and now we changed. Today, perhaps the most noticeable aspect of American economics and perhaps the most dangerous aspect of American politics, is the growing gap between rich and poor.

Bidding farewell to my German exchange student last year I asked, "What will be your most vivid memory which you will take back to Germany with you after a year in Durham?"

He replied, "Armen and Elend." Poverty and misery. He had never really experienced grinding, pervasive poverty until he entered neighborhoods not a mile from this campus. Some memory of America.

6. More vs. Love

Illustration

Leonard Sweet

The world's philosophy is a four-letter word: More. The church's theology is also a four-letter word, but it often means the opposite of more: Love. Will the church be a force and a forum for love?

The problem with our world, our nation and our church can be summed up in one word: More. "More" has become, as Laurence Shames has put it, America's "unofficial national motto." We want more of everything: more fun, more money, more excitement, more love, more programs, more church members, more, more, more. "More is what Americans are used to, what we perceive as normal, here in the land of the escalation clause, the built-in increase. More is the way we think about 'success.'" And more is what America and the world is running out of.

The indecent discrepancy between the rich man's lifestyle and Lazarus' life-struggle was appalling. But for a long time Americans have considered themselves pretty much delivered from that kind of fearful inequality. That's why we have lumped nearly everyone into this country's great "middle class." Of course there have always been a few exceedingly rich individuals. And of course, any realistic person knows that a certain number of poor "will always be with us." But both rich and poor are still considered anomalies to the norm.

7. The Man Who Dies Rich

Illustration

Richard J. Fairchild

Andrew Carnegie, who amassed a fortune of over 400 million dollars ended up giving 99.5% of it away. He said this about it - "the man who dies rich, dies disgraced."

8. Which Kingdom?

Illustration

James Merritt

I heard about a Sunday School teacher that told his class about the story of the rich man and Lazarus. He highlighted the good end of Lazarus and the bad end of the rich man. He pointed out how one man went to hell and the other man went to heaven. He also pointed out how rich one man was and how poor the other man was. After the teacher taught his lesson he said to the class, "Now which would you rather be, boys, the rich man or Lazarus?" One boy raised his hand and said, "Well, I'd like to be the rich man while I'm alive, and Lazarus when I'm dead."

Well, that's what we all wish, but you have to decide which kingdom you are going to be a part of on this earth. You've got to decide what you are going to surrender your life to on this earth. You've got to decide before you leave this earth where you are going to spend eternity after you leave this earth. Whatever decision you make, when you die you will live with for all eternity.

9. Which Way Will You Go?

Illustration

James Merritt

Here is a fascinating meteorological fact. When a drop of water falls on the Continental Divide, if it falls just a little to the one side of the Divide; that drop of water will continue to go and flow on toward the West until it goes out into the Pacific Ocean.

But if that same drop of water falls and turns to the other side of the Continental Divide, it will continue to flow until it reaches the Mississippi Valley, down into the Mississippi River, down into the Gulf of Mexico, and finally out into the Atlantic Ocean.

Isn't it strange how two drops of water could seem to start so nearly in the same place, and yet actually wind up oceans apart? That is exactly the way it is with people. There are people who come from the same backgrounds, have the same opportunities, in many cases even many of the same genes and chromosomes, the same gifts and abilities, the same outlook on life, and yet when they die they will wind up literally worlds apart, never to see each other again.

10. She Needs It the Most

Illustration

Thomas C. Short

A man went to visit in a home where there were several children, and, trying to relate to the kids, he asked one of the girls about her doll collection. "Which is your favorite doll?" he asked. "Promise not to laugh if I tell you?" she questioned. He promised not to laugh, and the little girl got up, went into another room, and brought back a worn-out, tattered doll that looked like a refugee from the trash pile. There was a crack in the arm, a missing nose, marks all over the body and a bald head. The man did not laugh, but unable to hide his surprise, he asked, "Why do you love this one the most?" She replied, "Because she needs it most. If I didn't love her, nobody would."

In the attitude of this young girl we see a part of the secret in this parable. God is in the lives of those who cry out to us for our love and compassion. These signs, signals and revelations are all around us; we can't miss them unless we choose to miss them.

11. Self Restraint

Illustration

Matt Ridley

John Hildebrand who has lived in the Artesian Valley, near Fowler, Kansas, since he was two years old, remembers why the valley has the name it does. "There were hundreds of natural springs in this valley. If you drilled a well for your house, the natural water pressure was enough to go through your hot-water system and out the shower head." There were marshes in Fowler in the 1920s, where cattle sank to their bellies in mud. And the early settlers went boating down Crooked Creek, in the shade of the cottonwoods, as far as Meade, twelve miles away.

Today the creek is dry, the bogs and the springs have gone, and the inhabitants of Fowler must dig deeper and deeper wells to bring up water. The reason is plain enough: seen from the air, the surrounding land is pockmarked with giant discs of green quarter-section pivot-irrigation systems water rich crops of corn, steadily depleting the underlying aquifer. Everybody in Fowler knows what is happening, but it is in nobody's interest to cut down his own consumption of water. That would just leave more for somebody else.

Five thousand miles to the east, near the Spanish city of Valencia, the waters of the River Turia are shared by some 15,000 farmers in an arrangement that dates back at least 550 years and probably longer. Each farmer, when his turn comes, takes as much water as he needs from the distributory canal and wastes none. He is discouraged from cheating watering out of turn merely by the watchful eyes of his neighbors above and below him on the canal. If they have a grievance, they can take it to the Tribunal de las Aguas, which meets on Thursday mornings outside the Apostles' door of the Cathedral of Valencia. Records dating back to the 1400s suggest that cheating is rare. The huerta of Valencia is a profitable region, growing at least two crops a year.

Two irrigation systems: one sustainable, equitable, and long-lived, the other a doomed free-for-all. Two case histories cited by political scientists who struggle to understand the persistent human failure to solve "common-pool resource problems." The only way to avoid abuse is self-restraint. And yet nobody knows how best to persuade the human race to exercise self-restraint.

12. The Parable of the Five Brothers

Illustration

Joachim Jeremias

The first point is concerned with the reversal of fortune in the after-life (vv. 19-26), the second (vv. 27-31) with the petition of the rich man that Abraham may send Lazarus to his five brethren. . . [Jesus places] the stress is on the second point. That means that Jesus does not want to comment on a social problem, nor does he intend to give teaching about the after-life, but he relates the parable to warn men who resemble the brothers of the rich man of the impending danger. Hence the poor Lazarus is only a secondary figure, introduced by way of contrast. The parable is about the five brothers, and it should not be styled the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, but the parable of the Six Brothers.

The surviving brothers, who have their counterpart in the men of the Flood generation [Jeremias' reference to Noah's generation], living a careless life, heedless of the rumble of the approaching flood (Matt. 24:37-39), are men of this world, like their dead brother. Like him they live in selfish luxury, deaf to God's word, in the belief that death ends all (v. 28). Scornfully, Jesus was asked by these skeptical worldlings for a valid proof of a life after death, if they were to be paying heed to his warning. Jesus wanted to open their eyes, but to grant their demand would not be the right way to do so. Why did Jesus refuse it? Because its fulfillment would have been meaningless; even the greatest wonder, resurrection, would be in vain [in John 11:46 ff. the raising of Lazarus served to complete the hardening of the Jews]. He who will not submit to the word of God, will not be converted by a miracle. The demand for a sign is an evasion and a sign of impenitence. Hence the sentence is pronounced: "God will never give a sign to this generation" (Mark 8.12).

13. What Are You Doing?

Illustration

Edward F. Markquart

In 1905, we received a classic interpretation of this parable in the person of Dr. Albert Schweitzer. The truth of the parable finally penetrated his heart and Dr. Schweitzer wrote the following words: "We British (and Americans) are the rich people. Out there in Africa lies wretched Lazarus. Just as the rich man sinned against Lazarus because of his lack of heart and compassion, so the rich man would not put himself in Lazarus' place. Nor did the rich man let his conscience tell him what to do. And so we English (and Americans) have sinned against the poorest of the world at our gates."

And what did Dr. Albert Schweitzer do? He gave up his life and went to Africa. But that was over 100 years ago. The question is for you and me. "What did I do for Lazarus? What are you doing for Lazarus?" Are you and me merely brushing off the crumbs from our table?

14. Global Rich List

Illustration

Brett Blair & Sarah Dylan Breuer

I encourage you to go to the website givingwhatwecan.org and do a little reflecting. It's a site where you can enter your annual income, in American or Canadian dollars, Euro, Yen, or Pounds, and then click a button to find out how many of the world's people are richer than you, and how many are poorer. You'll find the widget at the bottom of the home page.

For example, my annual income of $36,000 per year places me in the top 16% of the world's richest. That information sure puts me on the edge of my seat when I hear "Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation." And it puts me on the edge of my seat when I read the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Luke's "woes" don't say anything like, "woe to you who are rich and ungenerous"; they just say, "woe to you who are rich." As one of the world's top 16% richest people, that has to give me pause.

15. I Was Hungry

Illustration

Adrian Dieleman

I WAS HUNGRY and you circled the moon.
I WAS HUNGRY and you told me to wait.
I WAS HUNGRY and you set up a commission.
I WAS HUNGRY and you talked about bootstraps.
I WAS HUNGRY and you told me I shouldn't be.
I WAS HUNGRY and you had napalm bills to pay.
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Machines do that kind of work now."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "The poor are always with us."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Law and order comes first."
I WAS HUNGRY and you blamed it on the Communists.
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "So were my ancestors."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "We don't hire over 35."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "God helps those who help themselves."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Sorry, try again tomorrow."

This was written in the 70's but I don't think things have changed all that much. The point is that those who consider themselves to be one of God's children in Christ MUST share with the needy. Those who worship God must show compassion to the hungry. This is not an option. This is a requirement from the Lord for those who are saved by grace through faith. Showing compassion is a test of the reality of our faith.

16. The Collateral Damage of Our Attitudes

Illustration

Brett Blair

In those first few weeks after 9/11, it was difficult to take in all the things happening, much less make some kind of sense of it all. Occasionally you read something in the paper or you heard something on TV which helped you put things in perspective. I remember by Thursday September 13th all of the sporting events that weekend had been cancelled. One of the NFL athletes was asked about playing on Sunday. He said, "Why? Who wants to play? I have a family and my heart just wouldn't be in it."

A TV journalist stopped a woman on the streets and asked about her business. She said, "I'm not interested in making money any more. My family and my relationships are the most important things in life."

The Late Show with David Letterman, as you may well know, is produced in the heart of New York City. It was Monday the 17th before the show was back on the air and Letterman said that the only reason he was back was due to the strength of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. In his opening monologue he praised the Mayor saying: "If you've been watching and you're confused, and depressed, and irritated, and angry, and full of grief and you don't know how to behave and you're not sure what to do, because we've never been through this before, all you had to do at any moment is watch the Mayor. Watch how this guy behaved. Watch how this guy conducted himself. Watch what this guy did. Listen to what this guy said. Rudolph Giuliani is the personification of courage. He's an amazing man and far better than we could have hoped for. To run the city in the midst of this obscene chaos and attack and also demonstrate human dignity... Who can do that? That's a pretty short list."

It's amazing how events like this can change our perspective. Giuliani was vilified by many, and has sense been vilified. But then he was respected by almost everyone. People appreciated what he did for the city. Events like this also tend to bring out the best in us. David Letterman, who mad a living making fun of everyone, including himself, has showed a more human side for sometime afterwards.

The new Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Collateral Damage" was delayed in it's opening. It was due out less than one month after [Oct. 5th]. Ironically it was about terrorist of course. Target pulled violent video games off the shelf the day after. We really saw how insensitive we were before the events of the 11th.

That is what happened to the rich man in Jesus' story. When he arrived in hell and looked across the chasm at poor Lazarus sitting comfortably beside Abraham, his perspective was changed. He suddenly understood how insensitive and selfish he had been. What does it take to open our eyes? To help us see the collateral damage of our attitudes.

17. Different Worlds

Illustration

Brett Blair

Some years ago before the death of Mother Theresa, a television special depicted the grim human conditions that were a part of her daily life. It showed all the horror of the slums of Calcutta and her love for these destitute people. The producer interviewed her as she made her rounds in that dreadful place. Throughout the program commercials interrupted the flow of the discussion. Here is the sequence of the topics and commercials: lepers (bikinis for sale); mass starvation (designer jeans); agonizing poverty (fur coats); abandoned babies (ice cream sundaes) the dying (diamond watches).

The irony was so apparent. Two different worlds were on display--the world of the poor and the world of the affluent. It seems that our very culture here in the United States, and any other place that has a great deal of commercialization to it, is teaching us to live as the Rich Man in the story of Lazarus. We are occasionally presented with the images of the poor man Lazarus at our gate but we are immediately reminded of the next car we ought to by and the next meal we should eat. We are slowly and methodically told it is O.K. to live our life of luxury while others live their life of poverty. But alas, it is not so! Heaven's reversal of fortune shall one day awaken us to the fact that we have separated ourselves from the agonies of others. That we did not care about others who suffered.

18. Neighbors Who Never Met - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

What parable would make a man with three doctoral degrees (one in medicine, one in theology, one in philosophy) leave civilization with all of its culture and amenities and depart for the jungles of darkest Africa? What parable could induce a man, who was recognized as one of the best concert organists in all of Europe, go to a place where there were no organs to play. What parable would so intensely motivate a man that he would give up a teaching position in Vienna, Austria to go and deal with people who were so deprived that they were still living in the superstitions of the dark ages for all practical purposes. The man who I am talking about, of course, is Dr. Albert Schweitzer. And the single parable that so radically altered his life, according to him, was our text for this morning. It was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

The Rich Man and Lazarus were neighbors, you know. They saw each other every day. Oh, not socially you understand, but there was contact. Every day the Rich Man saw this beggar at his front gate. Who were these men?

We shall call the Rich Man Dives [pronounced ‘Dive-ees': it's Latin for "Rich Man" as he has been called for centuries] Dives would have felt very comfortable living in our present time. He was a progressive kind of a guy. He was self-indulgent and this is the age of self-indulgency. The contrasting life-styles of these two men is so obvious that you can't miss it. Dives was a connoisseur, a lover of the arts, one who knows and appreciates fine living, four star restaurants.

We are told in vs. 19 that he habitually dressed in purple. Purple was known as the color of royalty because it was the most expensive dye in the ancient world. Only the upper echelon and the high priest could afford it. We are also told that his undergarments were made of fine linen. Linen, the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

The other man in the story is Lazarus. How can we describe Lazarus? Lararus is homeless. We are told in vs. 20 that he was a cripple. Lazarus barely made it from day to day, living off the leftovers thrown to him by Dives as he daily passed him. He is just a survivor, that's all you can say of him.

One day, said Jesus, both men died. Death after all is the great equalizer. Death does not care about your social standing, your color, or your standing in the community. Lazarus, said Jesus, was carried away by the angel of death unto heaven, where he occupied the seat of honor next to Abraham. About Dives, the rich man, all that Jesus says is that he was buried. Isn't that strange that that is all that he says? After all, Dives funeral must having been something that the community would remember for years to come. Apparently, however, that fact failed to impress Jesus. Oh, Jesus did add one additional fact about Dives' death that may be of interest to you. His soul was sent to hell.

This is an unnerving story. I can well see why this was the irritating grain of sand in Albert Schweitzer's oyster. Why is this story so bothersome? For a few moments this morning I would like to share exactly why. It is bothersome because….

First, it shows how God reverses the standards of the world.
Second, it is a terrible fate for a man who was not mean.
Third, the rich man begs to warn his living brothers.

19. Closing the Curtains

Illustration

Brett Blair

The great thing about having small children is you have a great excuse to watch cartoons again. Well, I'll own up here. I watched them even before I had children. One cartoon that I am particularly fond of is Garfield the Cat. There is a great humor in those sarcastic witticisms of his. One cold winter night Garfield looks out the window and sees Odie the Dog peering through the window. Garfield thinks to himself: This is horrible. Here I am in the comfort of a warm house, well fed, and there is Odie outside begging to get in, cold and hungry. I can't stand it anymore. I just can't stand it. So at that he goes over to the window…and closes the curtains.

Friends, that is what you and I have done to the poor. Rather than dealing with them, we have simply closed the curtains. We drive by people holding those signs: "Will work for food," and we have seen it so much we don t even give it a second thought any more.

20. The Name of Dives

Illustration

Brett Blair

Dives is not a name. It is a Latin adjective which simply means rich. This is how the tradition evolved which gave the rich man the name of Dives. If wealth prevents us from getting into heaven, then Abraham wouldn't be the one meeting Lazarus because he was a very wealthy man. The rich man does not end up in torment because he is rich, but because of his indifferent and uncaring attitude toward poor Lazarus.

21. Monuments To Self

Illustration

Brett Blair

There is a strange group of tombstones in the Mount Hope Cemetery in Hiawatha, Kansas. A man named John Davis, a farmer and self-made man, had them erected. Davis began as a lowly hired hand and by sheer determination and frugality he managed to amass a considerable fortune. In the process, however, Davis didn't make many friends.

When his wife died, Davis erected an elaborate statue in her memory. He hired a sculptor to design a monument which showed both her and him at opposite ends of a love seat. He was so pleased with the result that he commissioned another statue - this time of himself, kneeling at her grave, placing a wreath on it. That impressed him so much that he ordered a third monument - this time of his wife kneeling at his future gravesite placing a wreath. He had the sculptor add a pair of wings on her back giving her the appearance of an angel. One idea led to another until he'd spent over a quarter million dollars on the monuments to himself and his wife, all during the depression!

After using up all his money on stone statues - John Davis died at age 92. The monuments are now a big tourist attraction, but very few people attended Mr. Davis' funeral. Only one person seemed genuinely moved by any sense of personal loss. He was Horace England - the sculptor. David did give tens-of-thousands to various charities causes in the area over his lifetime but Monuments to yourself seems a strange way to leave this world.

Note: Go here to see the see the actual monument.

22. A Little Silver

Illustration

Michael P. Green

One day a certain old, rich man of a miserable disposition visited a rabbi, who took the rich man by the hand and led him to a window. “Look out there,” he said. The rich man looked into the street, “What do you see?” asked the rabbi.

“I see men, women, and children,” answered the rich man.

Again the rabbi took him by the hand and this time led him to a mirror. “Now what do you see?”

“Now I see myself,” the rich man replied.

Then the rabbi said, “Behold, in the window there is glass, and in the mirror there is glass. But the glass of the mirror is covered with a little silver, and no sooner is the silver added than you cease to see others, but you see only yourself.”

23. Habituation

Illustration

King Duncan

A noisy elevated train used to run along Third Avenue in New York City. After it was torn down, "many people in the neighborhood began to call the police quite late to report something strange occurring "unusual noises, suspected thieves or burglars. . . . The police determined that these calls took place at about the time the former late-night train would have passed these people's houses. What they were hearing' was the absence of the familiar noise of the train."

They had grown habituated to this particular noise. Now they would have to become habituated to its absence. Habituation. Growing so accustomed to something that we no longer even realize it is there.

24. Prayed Correctly

Illustration

King Duncan

Lloyd Ogilvie tells of a father who knelt down to tuck his little boy into bed. It was time for prayers and hugs. The little boy began his childhood prayer which he had repeated so many times before: "Now I lay me down to sleep; I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take." On this night, however, the words got mixed up and the child inadvertently spoke words of the greatest wisdom he would ever know. He prayed: "If I should wake before I die. . . ." Then he stopped in embarrassment and apologized, "Oh, Daddy, I got all mixed up." Wisely, his father responded, "Not at all, son; that is the first time that prayer was properly prayed. My deepest longing for you is that you may wake up before you die."

Let's talk for a few minutes about waking up before we die for, indeed, some of us are asleep in some of the most critical areas of our life.

25. Are You a Missionary?

Illustration

King Duncan

Wilfred Grenfell, medical missionary to Labrador was guest at a dinner in London together with a number of socially prominent British men and women.

During the course of the dinner, the lady seated next to him turned and said, "Is it true, Dr. Grenfell, that you are a missionary?"

Dr. Grenfell looked at her for a moment before replying, "Is it true, madam, that you are not?"

That is a powerful question. Is it true that you are not a missionary? How would we like to deal with that question when we stand before the throne of God? Is it true that you lived only for yourself and your own family? Is it true that you had opportunities to help the hungry, the thirsty, the lonely, the dying and you walked by as if they weren't even there? Is it true that you weren't a missionary? Wow that hurts. But somehow I feel that is the question that God poses for each of us today.

26. Who Have We Been Trampling?

Illustration

King Duncan

There is an ancient story about a botanist who was studying the Bell Heather found in the highlands of Scotland. While looking through his microscope at this beautiful flower, he was approached by a shepherd who asked what he was doing. Rather than trying to explain, the botanist invited the shepherd to peer through his microscope and observe for himself. When the shepherd saw the wonder of the flower, he exclaimed, "My God, and I have been tramping on them all my life!"

Is that the word of warning we need? Wake up! Pay attention! Look around you. You may be tramping on the heart of someone nearby. Who is the Lazarus at your gate?

27. Eternal Punishment

Illustration

James Packer

We are told in the parable of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46) that those whom the judge rejects go away into Kolasis (punishment) aionios (a final state). The phrase is balanced by the reference to zoe aionios (eternal life) which is also a fixed and final state. Even if this word aionios is believed to mean only "belonging to the coming aion", and not to imply endlessness in the sense of perpetual continuity, the thought of endlessness is certainly bound up in the phrase "eternal life," and can hardly therefore be excluded from the corresponding and balancing phrase "eternal punishment." The idea that in this text aionios as applied to kolasis must imply everlastingness seems to be unbreakable.

The New testament always conceives of this eternal punishment as consisting of an agonizing knowledge of one's own ill desert, of God's displeasure, of the good that one has lost, and of the irrevocable fixed state in which one now finds oneself. The doctrine of eternal punishment was taught in the synagogue even before our Lord took it up and enforced it in the Gospels. All the language that strikes terror into our hearts weeping and gnashing of teeth, outer darkness, the worm, the fire, gehenna, the great gulf fixed is all directly taken from our Lord's teaching. It is from Jesus Christ that we learn the doctrine of eternal punishment.

Study the following Bible passages and any other relevant ones on this topic, and reach your own conclusions, prayerfully: Luke 16:26; John 3:18-19, 36; 5:29; 12:32; Acts 3:21,23; Rom. 1:16, 5:18-21; 1 Cor. 15:25-28; 2 Cor. 5:10, 19; 6:2; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:25; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Tim. 2:4; Titus 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 9:27; 1 Pet. 3:19; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 John 1:5; 2:2; 4:8.

28. Who Can Be Saved?

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

"Zacchaeus was a wee little man, a wee little man was he ...." Many people have learned that song in Sunday school. We might be tempted to think, therefore, that this is a story "for children only." Nothing could be further from the truth. The story of Zacchaeus is one of the most important stories for children and adults in the entire Gospel of Luke. It's important because it tells us how Christians can live with wealth. It's important because the story of Zacchaeus tells how it is that we can be saved.

Zacchaeus was a man who gouged his riches out of his people in the form of additional taxes. He was a man hated by the people of Jericho. Zacchaeus was a sinner. He had broken most of the laws of his people. Zacchaeus stands quite in contrast to a rich young ruler whose story Luke has just told (Luke 18:18-30). The rich young ruler is a righteous man. He has kept most of the laws of his people. He is beloved by the people of his town.

And so, one day, Jesus came to the town of the rich young ruler. The ruler had a question for Jesus. "... what must I do to inherit eternal life?" the ruler said to Jesus (Luke 18:18).

Jesus answered the rich ruler. "You know the commandments," Jesus said. "You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother" (Luke 18:20).

If you had been there just then you would have seen a big smile break out all over the rich ruler's face. He was tickled to death. He'd done all this! He had kept all the commandments! "I have kept all these since my youth," he said to Jesus through his broad smile (Luke 18:21). This was a man who had just found out that he would be saved. His deeds made it so.

But Jesus wasn't finished with the rich young man. "Not so fast," Jesus seems to say. "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me" (Luke 18:22).

The smile immediately left the young man's face. He was very rich. There was just no way that he was going to give up all his wealth. Not even for his salvation. Jesus reflected upon his departure: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" (Luke 18:24).

Now there was a crowd observing all this. They were scandalized by Jesus' words and the ruler's departure. They knew this young man. They knew him to be an upright and honest man. They knew him to be a benefactor of the town. "If this man can't be saved," they said to Jesus, "then who can be saved?"

Jesus replied: "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God" (Luke 18:27). This is a wonderful, high-sounding answer to the question of the crowd. But what does it mean? What does it mean for you and for me? If a wonderfully righteous person like the young ruler can be turned away from salvation, what hope is there for us? None of us lives up to the standards of the rich young ruler. None of us has kept all the commandments. Is salvation a possibility for us at all?

"Who then can be saved?" Luke's answer: Zacchaeus can be saved! Sinners can be saved! "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God." "For the Son of Man came to seek out and save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

29. BEGGAR

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Psalm 37:25 - "... yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread."

A beggar is a person who lives on the charity of others; there were (and are) professional beggars, who solicited alms publicly, and even went from door to door. They are still numerous in the East; they are usually "lame, maimed, or blind" (Luke 14:13). The commonest and most pathetic form of infirmity is blindness; some of these blind beggars are led by children and have regular places to station themselves.

The begging was sometimes only a simple statement of poverty. "I am poor," "I want a loaf of bread," or "give me the price of a loaf of bread." But occasionally they used the expressive gesture of bringing the forefinger across the teeth and holding it up as a proof that there was absolutely no trace of food in the mouth. It was Amos’ "cleanness of teeth" (Amos 4:6).

The beggars were typical of the Jewish life of Jesus’ time, particularly, and there were a great many of them. The New Testament speaks of several, from Lazarus, who lay covered with sores, wishing that he might be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, and the blind Bartimaeus whom St. Mark shows sitting by the wayside just outside Jericho, to the lame man found by Peter and John at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple.

Although there is no doubt that many of these beggars were professionals, still there were also many who were legitimately sick or crippled, or in some way unable to hold a job. It was in the role of one of these miserable souls that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the last judgment: "I was hungry, and you gave me food, thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you brought me home, naked, and you clothed me, sick and you cared for me" (Matthew 25:35-40).

Jerusalem, particularly at the time of the great pilgrimages, was thronged by all the beggars in the Holy Land; they knew very well that those who came to pray for God’s pardon would be in a charitable frame of mind. At other times, the beggars wandered along the roads, going to the markets and the fords of the rivers, and profiting too by the permission the Law gave them to eat ears of corn in the fields and grapes in the vineyards, providing they carried neither basket nor sickle, and to pick up windfalls and gather overlooked bunches.

Just as today, the daily life of Israel was punctuated by the sound of their entreaties. Some of them posed as sent from God; "I am your guest! I am God’s guest! God will direct you! God will recompense you! God will preserve your children! God will prolong your days!" So, today as then, beggars are often the street preachers of the East.

I confess to being somewhat at a loss as to how I might compare the ancient beggar with his modern counterpart. The obvious association is with the charitable organizations which solicit funds and other types of assistance for those less fortunate than ourselves. But I don’t wish to imply that begging, in the ancient sense, is involved here. Modern charity is highly organized, and regimented, and rightly so, for the sake of those who are on the receiving end. But it still involves a giving of that of which we are possessed, whether it be food, money, or clothing - or love. And, in that degree, it becomes comparable to the obligations that are imposed on all of us, not any one class or profession or occupation. We are all enjoined to care for our brothers, and this we might not disobey.

30. A Deep Love for God, A Deep Love for Neighbors

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

There is an Irish legend about a king, who had no children to succeed him on the throne. So, he had his messengers post signs in every town and village of his kingdom inviting qualified young men to apply for an interview with the king. This way the king hoped to be able to choose a successor before he died.

Two qualifications, especially, were stressed. The person must have a deep love for God and a deep love for his neighbor.

A young man saw one of the signs. He indeed had a deep love for God and neighbor. He felt a kind of inner voice telling him to apply for an interview.

But the young man was so poor that he didn't have decent clothes to wear to an interview. He also didn't have any money to buy provisions for the long journey to the king's castle.

So the young man prayed over the matter. He finally decided to beg for the clothes and the provisions he needed. When everything was ready, he set out. After a month of travel, one day the young man caught sight of the king's castle. It sat high on a hill in the distance.

At about the same time, he also caught sight of a poor old beggar sitting by the side of the road. The beggar held out his hands and pleaded for help. "I'm hungry and cold," he said in a weak voice. "Could you give me something warm to wear and something nourishing to eat?"

The sight of the beggar moved the young man. He stripped off his warm outer clothes and exchanged them for the tattered old coat of the beggar. He also gave the beggar most of the provisions he had been carrying in his backpack for the return journey. Then, somewhat uncertainly, he walked on to the castle in tattered clothes and without enough food for his return trip.

When the young man arrived at the castle, guards met him at the gate. They took him to the visitors' area. After a long wait, the young man was led into see the king.

He bowed low before the throne. When he straightened up, the young man could hardly believe his eyes. He said to the king. "You were the beggar beside the road."

"That's right," said the king.

"Why did you do this to me?" asked the young man.

The king said, "I had to find out if you really did love God and neighbor." And then the king told him he had proved himself and was the new heir. What a surprise.

31. Back To Basics: The Three R's of Baptism - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Baptism is a powerful force in the life of a Christian for two reasons. It is something we share in common. Christians all over the world can say that they were baptized in Christ. You met a Catholic in Ireland. He was baptized. You met a Pentecostal in Nigeria. She was baptized. The second reason Baptism is a powerful force is that baptism takes us back to the basics. Now let me set these two ideas up for you with a couple of stories.

You perhaps at one time or another have seen on TV the old black and white video footage of the civil rights marches in the sixties. Martin Luther King often at the front received his share of stinging high-pressured water hoses. Rev. King once remarked that he and the other marchers had a common strength. He put it this way, as "we went before the fire hoses; we had known water. If we were a Baptist or some other denomination, we had been immersed. If we were Methodist, and some others, we had been sprinkled, but we knew water."

You and I know the water. All of God's children know the water. We share by our faith this common symbol, this initiation, this rite, this power of God over the deep and often raging chaos of life. We know water! All over the world Baptism unites us.

It also brings us back to the basics. Perhaps in our lifetime the most public statement of repentance was that of President Bill Clinton's. The one he made before a Prayer Breakfast on September 10, 1998. He summed up the task perfectly when he said, "I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned." Then he quoted from a book given him by a Jewish friend in Florida. The book is called "Gates of Repentance."

Clinton read this passage from the book: "Now is the time for turning. The leaves are beginning to turn from green to red to orange. The birds are beginning to turn and are heading once more toward the south. The animals are beginning to turn to storing their food for the winter. For leaves, birds and animals, turning comes instinctively. But for us, turning does not come so easily. It takes an act of will for us to make a turn. It means breaking old habits. It means admitting that we have been wrong, and this is never easy. It means losing face. It means starting all over again. And this is always painful. It means saying I am sorry. It means recognizing that we have the ability to change. These things are terribly hard to do. But unless we turn, we will be trapped forever in yesterday's ways."

Clinton's quote ended with this prayer: "Lord help us to turn, from callousness to sensitivity, from hostility to love, from pettiness to purpose, from envy to contentment, from carelessness to discipline, from fear to faith. Turn us around, O Lord, and bring us back toward you. Revive our lives as at the beginning and turn us toward each other, Lord, for in isolation there is no life."

What ever you might think of Clinton and his sincerity, he understood that he needed to do something very basic before the nation. He needed to repent. It's amazing isn't it? Not even a president can escape the basic truths of life. It's like in elementary school. Our parents and teachers understand the importance of building a strong foundation for a child's future. So, we were taught the basics, the three R's: Reading, writing, and arithmetic. Ever notice that only one of those begins with an R. I always thought the fellow that came up with that one needed to go back to school.

As parents and teachers and leaders today we would do well to remember that life is still composed of basics. That is why, when Mark chose to open his Gospel, he did so with the Baptism of Jesus at the Jordan. Baptism reminds us of the three R's of the soul: Repentance, righteousness, and revelation. So, don't be amazed when a president of the United States repents before the nation for even Christ himself, as we have just read, began his ministry identifying with the basics: repentance, righteousness, and revelation. Christ submitted himself to the basics. You ask me, Pastor, why should I be baptized? My answer is, Christ himself was baptized, so should you. Baptism begins the most basic elements of the Christian walk: Repentance from sin, a life of righteousness, and an understanding that God has reveled himself in Christ.

Let's take a look at our Lord's Baptism and what it tells us about the three spiritual R's:

1. The first R is Repentance.
2. The second R is Righteousness.
3. The third R is Revelation.

32. The Covenants of the Scripture

Illustration

Merrill F. Unger

Scripture's covenants and their significance:

Eternal covenant, Hebrews 13:20 :The redemptive covenant before time began, between the Father and the Son. By this covenant we have eternal redemption, an eternal peace from the 'God of peace', through the death and resurrection of the Son.

Edenic covenant, Genesis 1:26-28: The creative covenant between the Triune God, as the first party (Genesis 1:26), and newly created man, as the second party, governing man's creation and life in Edenic innocence. It regulated man's dominion and subjugation of the earth, and presented a simple test of obedience. The penalty was death.

Adamic covenant, Genesis 3:14-19: The covenant conditioning fallen man's life on the earth. Satan's tool (the serpent) was cursed (Gen 3:14); the first promise of the Redeemer was given (3:15); women's status was altered (3:16); the earth was cursed (3:17-19); physical and spiritual death resulted (3:19).

Noahic covenant, Genesis 8:20-9:6: The covenant of human government. Man is to govern his fellowmen for God, indicated by the institution of capital punishment as the supreme judicial power of the state (Genesis 9:5-6). Other features included the promise of redemption through the line of Shem (Genesis 9:26).

Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12:1-3; confirmed 13:14-17; 15:1-7; 17:1-8: The covenant of promise. Abraham's posterity was to be made a great nation. In him (through Christ) all the families of the earth were to be blessed (Galations 3:16; John 8:56-58).

Mosaic covenant, Exodus 20:1-31:18: The legal covenant, given solely to Israel. It consisted of the commandments (Exodus 20:1-26); the judgments (social) - (Exodus 21:1; 24:11) and the ordinances (religious); (Exodus 24:12-31:18); also called the law. It was a conditional covenant of works, a ministry of 'condemnation' and 'death' (2 Corinthians 3:7-9), designed to lead the transgressor (convicted thereby as a sinner) to Christ.

Palestinian covenant, Deut 30:1-10: The covenant regulating Israel's tenure of the land of Canaan. Its prophetic features include dispersion of disobedience (Deuteronomy 30:1), future repentance while in dispersion (30:2), the Lord's return (30:3), the restoration (30:4-5, national conversion (3:6), judgment of Israel's foes (30:7), national prosperity (30:9). Its blessings are conditioned upon obedience (30:8,10), but fulfillment is guaranteed by the new covenant.

Davidic covenant, 2 Samuel 7:4-17, 1 Chr 17:4-15: The kingdom covenant regulating the temporal and eternal rule of David's posterity. It secures in perpetuity a Davidic 'house' or line, a throne, and a kingdom. It was confirmed by divine oath in Psalm 89:30-37 and renewed to Mary in Luke 1:31-33. It is fulfilled in Christ as the World's Saviour and Israel's coming King (Acts 1:6; Rev 19:16; 20:4-6).

New covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrew 8:8-12: The covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemption of Christ. It secures blessing for the church, flowing from the Abrahamic covenant (Galations 3:13-20), and secures all covenant blessings to converted Israel, including those of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, and Davidic covenants. This covenant is unconditional, final and irreversible.

33. My Symphony

Illustration

William Ellery Channing

To live content with small means,
To seek elegance rather than luxury,
and refinement rather than fashion;
To be worthy, not respectable,
and wealthy, not rich,
To study hard, think quietly, talk gently,
act frankly,
To listen to stars and birds,
to babes and sages, with open heart,
To bear all cheerfully, do all bravely,
await occasion, hurry never;
In a word, to let the spiritual, unbidden and
unconscious, grow up through the common:
This is to be my symphony.

34. A Reminder of Our True Home

Illustration

Charles Hoffacker

At the foot of a great mountain in China lived a father and his three sons. They were a simple and loving family. The father noticed that travelers came from afar eager to climb the dangerous mountain. But not one of them ever returned! The three sons heard stories about the mountain, how it was made all of gold and silver at the top. Despite their father's warnings, they could not resist venturing up the mountain.

Along the way, under a tree, sat a beggar, but the sons did not speak to him or give him anything. They ignored him. One by one, the sons disappeared up the mountain, the first to a house of rich food, the second to a house of fine wine, the third to a house of gambling. Each became a slave to his desire and forgot his home. Meanwhile, their father became heartsick. He missed them terribly. "Danger aside," he said, "I must find my sons."

Once he scaled the mountain, the father found that indeed the rocks were gold, the streams silver. But he hardly noticed. He only wanted to reach his sons, to help them remember the life of love they once knew. On the way down, having failed to find them, the father noticed the beggar under the tree and asked for his advice.

"The mountain will give your sons back," said the beggar, "only if you bring something from home to cause them to remember the love of their family."

The father raced home, brought back a bowl full of rice, and gave the beggar some as a thank-you for his wisdom. He then found his sons, one at a time, and carefully placed a grain of rice on the tongue of each of them. At that moment, the sons recognized their foolhardiness. Their real life was now apparent to them. They returned home with their father, and as one loving family lived happily ever after.

Today we gather in this church to receive a reminder of home, a taste of food that will help us remember who we are. I mean the bread of life, our Father's gift to us. This is the food of God's kingdom, and reminds us that this kingdom is our true home.

35. Getting What You Want

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

"Be careful," runs the old saying, "or you may get what you want."

One who would agree is a man who lived in a squalid tenement on a side street in East Boston. He was a tailor and worked long hours each day to eke out a meager existence. He allowed himself but one luxury: a ticket each year to the Irish Sweepstakes. And each year he would pray fervently that this would be the winning ticket that would bring him his fortune.

For fourteen years his life continued in the same impoverished vein, until one day there came a loud knocking on his door. Two well-dressed gentlemen entered his shop and informed him that he had just won the sweepstakes. The grand prize was $1,000,000!

The little tailor could hardly believe his ears. He was rich! No longer would he have to slave away making pant cuffs, hemming dresses. Now he could really live!

He locked his shop and threw the key into the Charles River. He bought himself a wardrobe fit for a king, a new Rolls Royce, a suite of rooms at the Ritz, and soon was supporting a string of attractive women.

Night after night he partied until dawn, spending his money as if each day was his last. Of course the inevitable happened. One day the money was gone. Furthermore, he had nearly wrecked his health.

Disillusioned, ridden with fever and exhausted, he returned to his little shop and set up business once more. And from force of habit, once again each year set aside from his meager savings the price of a sweepstakes ticket.

Two years later there came a second knock at his door. The same two gentlemen stood there once again. "This is the most incredible thing in the history of the sweepstakes," exclaimed one. "You have won again!"

The little tailor staggered to his feet with a groan that could be heard for miles. "Oh, no," he protested, "do you mean I have to go through all that again?"

36. My Back Yard

Illustration

Arthur E. Dean Windhorn

True happiness is not achieved it is received as in the case of two brothers Rich and Mike, who are complete opposites. Mike is a successful businessman. Rich, on the other hand, takes seasonal jobs at dude ranches, parks and resorts. Mike is always concerned for Rich's welfare and tries to entice him with the "good life." He sends Rich photos labeled with messages like "My new sound system" or "My new car." But one day the campaign ended when Mike received a poster from his brother showing a breathtaking view of Wyoming's Grand TetonNational Park. On the back was a message from Rich: "My back yard."

37. The Gospel According to the Hebrews

Illustration

William Barclay

There is an apocryphal gospel called "The Gospel According to the Hebrews" most of which is lost; in one of the fragments which remain there is an account of this incident which sheds a little light on its meaning. Here is how that ancient text records this story:

The rich man said to Jesus, "Master, what good thing must I do really to live?" Jesus said to him, "Man, obey the law and the prophets." He said, "I have done so." Jesus said to him, "Go, sell all that you possess, distribute it among the poor, and come, follow me!" The rich man began to scratch his head because he did not like this command. The Lord said to him, Why do you say that you have obeyed the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law, "You must love your neighbor as yourself," and look you there are many brothers of yours, sons of Abraham, who are dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, and not one single thing goes out of it to them." And he turned and said to Simon, his Disciple, who was sitting beside him, "Simon, son of Jonas, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

There we have the secret and the tragedy of the rich young ruler. He was living utterly selfishly. He was rich, and yet he gave nothing away. His real God was comfort, and what he really worshiped were his own possessions and his wealth. That is why Jesus told him to give it all away.

38. Great Reversals

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

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

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

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

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

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

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

39. It Isn't Fair! - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

One day a rich young ruler came enthusiastically running up to Jesus and asked: "What must I do to be saved?" Jesus answered: Keep the law. "This I have done from my youth up," came the reply. Yet one thing do you lack said Jesus. Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor. Then come follow me. We are told that the young man walked away sorrowfully, for he had great wealth. Concluded the Master: It will be hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

The disciples had been watching the dynamics of this happening and they were quite disturbed. Jewish tradition had always taught that God had especially blessed rich men and that is why he was rich. In their way of thinking, if a wealthy man could not receive salvation, then how could a poor man have any hope? They asked of Jesus: who then can be saved?

It reminds me of the movie Fiddler on the Roof. The poor Jewish milkman who lives in early 1900 Russia sings what he would do "if I were a rich man." His wife reminds him: money is a curse. He immediately shouts up to heaven: curse me God, curse me. Jesus has just turned away a wealthy man, and in the Jewish way of thinking it doesn't make any sense. In fact, I am not sure how many Methodist preachers would have the courage to do it. My entire ministry I have been waiting for a sugar daddy to come along.

But it was Simon Peter who drew the question even more clearly into focus for us. He asked what is on the mind of every one of us, only we are too sophisticated to ask it and too self-righteous to admit that we even think it. Peter didn't have any problem with that. He simply laid his cards out on the table. He said, "Lord, we have given up everything, riches and all, to follow you." What then shall we have?" In others words, what's in this for us Lord. How do we stand to profit? Where's the payoff?

In response to Peter's question, Jesus told a story. It was the harvest time of the year. At 7 A. M. a wealthy landowner went to the Town Square to hire laborers. In this story of hiring workers we learn:

The person who comes late is just as important as the one who comes early.
We really do not comprehend the nature of God's unmerited grace.
If there is any special payoff for being selected early to labor in the Lord's field, it is simply the inner satisfaction that we receive from being in God's employ.

40. This House for You

Illustration

Johnny Dean

Once there was a rich man who wanted to do something good for someone in his community. He spent a few days just traveling around his neighborhood and the general vicinity. During his travels, he noticed the poor living conditions of a certain carpenter who lived nearby. So the rich man went to the carpenter and hired him to build a house.

"Now this isn't just any old house you'll be building," the rich man said to the carpenter. "I want you to build this house for a very special person. I want you to use only the finest building materials, hire the best workmen you can find, and spare no expense. I'm going to be out of town for a couple of months, and I would like to see the house finished when I return."

The carpenter saw this as a great opportunity to make some extra money. He skimped on building materials, hired winos that hung out at the local bus station to help with the work, paying them as little as he could. He covered their mistakes with paint and plaster and cut corners at every opportunity.

When the rich man returned from his trip, the carpenter brought him the keys to the house and said, "I followed your instructions and built the house just as you told me to."

"I'm glad you did," the rich man said. Then he handed the keys back to carpenter saying, "The special person I wanted the house for is you. It's yours! You and your family can have it as my gift to you, and I'm sure you want to move in right away!" Perhaps one of the most difficult factors of Christian living is that we never know how or where or when God will act. We don't know exactly how God might help us, regardless of the time we spend in prayer. The God we worship and serve is a God who constantly surprises us. And this inability to predict God's movements can be very frustrating sometimes.

41. A Costly Thing

Illustration

William Barclay

There is one eternal principal which will be valid as long as the world lasts. The principle is:

Forgiveness is a costly thing.

Human forgiveness is costly. A son or a daughter may go wrong; a father or a mother may forgive; but that forgiveness has brought tears ... There was a price of a broken heart to pay. Divine forgiveness is costly. God is love, but God is holiness. God, least of all, can break the great moral laws on which the universe is built. Sin must have its punishment or the very structure of life disintegrates. And God alone can pay the terrible price that is necessary before men can be forgiven. Forgiveness is never a case of saying: "It's all right; it doesn't matter." Forgiveness is the most costly thing in the world.

42. Two Kinds of Life and Death

Illustration

John R. Brokhoff

Two Kinds of Life: The Greeks had two words for "life" and both appear in the New Testament. One is bios from which we get "biology." It refers to biological and physical life. It is not true life but mere existence. This is life in terms of quantity and extension. Methuselah, the oldest man in the Bible, had this kind of life. He lived 969 years, but there is no record of any contribution he made to the welfare of society.

The other Greek word is zoe. It is used to denote true life, the quality of life. It is spiritual life with God as the source of life. While bios is temporal, zoe is eternal. The one deals with the body and the other with the soul. But this eternal life also has quantity, for it extends through eternity. To distinguish this type of life from the former, the New Testament uses "eternal life."

Two Kinds of Death: As there are two kinds of life, there are two kinds of death. The bios type of life ends in physical death. The body declines, deteriorates, and dies. This is in accord with the natural order, for all living things die, including Homo sapiens. If a human were only a physical body, the person would come to an end. In this case, death has the last word and is the ultimate victor over life.

There is another kind of death. The Bible speaks of death in terms of separation from God. "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). Sin is the dreadful agent that separates us from God. To be apart from God, from life, love, joy, and peace, is to be dead. Does this mean that the soul is exterminated or extinguished? If so, there would be a merciful nothingness. However, the Bible teaches that a soul apart from God, living in death, is in hell, a state of misery. Paul describes the condition in hell: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9). As there is eternal life, there is also everlasting death. It is to save us from this fate that God gave his Son to die for us and to reinstate us with God in whom we have eternal life. The scriptures repeatedly assure us that God does not want a single soul to perish or to be lost or to go to hell. In Christ, God the Father gave his very self to prevent people from going to everlasting death.

43. Death: The Hell Club

Illustration

Paul Lee Tan

In the 18th century, Archibald Boyle was the leading member of an association of wild and wicked men known as "The Hell Club" in Glasgow, Scotland. After one night of carousing at the Club's notorious annual meeting, Boyle dreamed he was riding home on his black horse. In the darkness, someone seized the reins, shouting, "You must go with me!" As Boyle desperately tried to force the reins from the hands of the unknown guide, the horse reared. Boyle fell down, down, down with increasing speed. "Where are you taking me?" The cold voice replied, "To hell!" The echoes of the groans and yells of frantic revelry assaulted their ears. At the entrance to hell, Boyle saw the inmates chasing the same pleasures they had pursued in life. There was a lady he'd known playing her favorite vulgar game. Boyle relaxed, thinking hell must be a pleasurable place after all. When he asked her to rest a moment and show him through the pleasures of hell, she shrieked. "There is no rest in hell!" She unclasped the vest of her robe and displayed a coil of living snakes writhing about her midsection. Others revealed different forms of pain in their hearts. "Take me from this place!" Boyle demanded. "By the living God whose name I have so often outraged, I beg you, let me go!" His guide replied, "Go then but in a year and a day we meet to part no more."

At this, Boyle awoke, feeling that these last words were as letters of fire burned into his heart. Despite a resolution never to attend the Hell Club again, he soon was drawn back. He found no comfort there. He grew haggard and gray under the weight of his conscience and fear of the future. He dreaded attending the Club's annual meeting, but his companions forced him to attend. Every nerve of his body writhed in agony at the first sentence of the president's opening address: "Gentlemen, this is leap year; therefore it is a year and a day since our last annual meeting." After the meeting, he mounted his house to ride home. Next morning, his horse was found grazing quietly by the roadside. A few yards away lay the corpse of Archibald Boyle. The strange guide had claimed him at the appointed time.

44. Are We Rich?

Illustration

Bill Bouknight

The curse of any kind of valuable possession is its capacity to steal our hearts and souls. The heavier the purse, the tighter the strings. Is it fair to call most of us rich? According to our Methodist founder John Wesley, it is. He said that the word "rich" in the Bible means to have the necessities of life (food, shelter, and clothing) and then something left over. But here is part of the problem of us rich folks. We have increased the number of things we regard as necessities. We want three cars, two DVRs, four computers, a house at the lake, country club membership, and private school education. There are hundreds of things that we call necessities that our parents referred to as luxuries. The Bible says that shelter, food, and clothing are necessities. To have these and something left over, as almost all of us do, is to be rich.

45. The Price of Success

Illustration

William H. Hinson

You may have seen the “Hi and Lois” cartoon in which Ditto, their little boy, went to visit one of his rich young friends. The butler met him at the door and showed him to entire rooms filled with toys. Ditto said to his friend, ‘‘You and your daddy must have lots of fun playing with all these toys.”

The boy answered, “No, my daddy doesn’t have time to play with me. He’s at the office--he’s got offices all over the world. He can’t play with me.” The little rich boy reflected for a moment and then said, “I guess that’s the price of success.”

When Ditto returned home, he threw himself into his father’s arms and said, “Oh Daddy, I’m so glad you’re not a success. I just couldn’t afford for you to be a success!”

46. A Compliment to Freedom

Illustration

Lieghton Ford

Many things we don't know about hell. But Jesus and the New Testament writers used every image in their power to tell us that hell is real, it's terrible, it's something to be feared, and something to avoid. In his description of the last judgment, Jesus taught that some would go to eternal punishment, some to eternal life (Matt. 25:46). In other words, hell will be as real and as lasting as heaven.

The horror of hell is not physical pain. After all, the Bible tells us hell was "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41), and they're not physical beings. Rather the fire and outer darkness and the thirst depict spiritual separation from God, moral remorse, the consciousness that one deserves what he's getting.

Hell is disintegration the eternal loss of being a real person. In hell the mathematician who lived for his science can't add two and two. The concert pianist who worshiped himself through his art can't play a simple scale. The man who lived for sex goes on in eternal lust, with no body to exploit. The woman who made a god out of fashion has a thousand dresses but no mirror! Hell is eternal desire eternally unfulfilled.

But there's another side. G.K. Chesterton once remarked, "Hell is God's great compliment to the reality of human freedom and the dignity of human personality." Hell, a compliment? Yes, because God is saying to us, "You are significant. I take you seriously. Choose to reject me choose hell if you will. I will let you go."

47. HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Illustration

John H. Krahn

How much is enough? Most of us have asked this question many times throughout life. When our kids are having a bad day, we wonder how much we can take before we lose our temper. How much is enough? When we are buying something and bickering as to how much we should pay, we wonder, "How much is enough?" At work, when the thrust is to increase our production, we wonder, "How much is enough?" And so it is quite understandable that this question might also creep into our religious life and into our thoughts of salvation. How often must we attend church in order to be a good member? How many times must I forgive that person in order to qualify for God’s forgiveness of me? How good must we be to make it to heaven? How much is enough?

Whereas industry might consider it enough to get six hours of work from an employee in an eight-hour day, God says that only perfection is enough for us to enter into his presence at the end of time. There will be no bickering when Jesus returns. To say to Jesus, "But Lord, I was a good provider for my family; I worked seven days a week; I never willfully hurt anyone," cuts no ice with the Lord in terms of salvation. Only those who are perfect will go to heaven when Christ comes again. So you see, we all fall short when we look at our lives and ask, have I done enough? The most righteous among us cannot do enough to save themselves and qualify for heaven, for only perfection is enough.

Heaven can only be grasped by faith. Our faith, our trust, our belief, our love of the Lord Jesus Christ make heaven a certainty for our future. When the King of Ages returns to earth again, those who put their hope in the Lord will receive the benefits of forgiveness obtained through his punishment at Calvary. They will be gifted with eternal life. Good works do not appropriate eternity, only faith does.

To be ready for his return is to remain strong in the faith. If you have been putting off some aspect of the Christian discipline, put it off no longer - now is the time for change. The King is coming, and we must prepare. Each of us needs to be sure that our personal faith is strong. If we all knew the Lord was coming in one week, what would we do differently? Now is the time to begin. God in Christ has given us the crown of life through faith in his Son. Only when God gave everything was it enough for our salvation. How much will be enough of a commitment from us today? The Lord wants a total commitment of faith. How much is enough? Everything!

48. Prayer of a 7th Century Irish Monk

Illustration

Dimma

O God, you do not wish any sinner to die, but want all people to turn from their sins and live. We pray for our sinful brother, forgiving all his wrong-doing and turning his heart towards you. By his own merits he deserves only punishment, but in your mercy we pray that you will bestow upon him eternal life.

49. The Rich Man’s Reward

Illustration

There is an old story about a very wealthy man who died and went to heaven. An angel guided him on a tour of the celestial city. He came to a magnificent home. "Who lives there?" asked the wealthy man. "Oh," the angel answered, "on earth he was your gardener." The rich man got excited. If this was the way gardeners live, just think of the kind of mansion in which he would spend eternity. They came to an even more magnificent abode. "Whose is this?" asked the rich man almost overwhelmed. The angel answered, "She spent her life as a missionary." The rich man was really getting excited now. Finally they came to a tiny shack with no window and only a piece of cloth for a door. It was the most modest home the rich man had ever seen. "This is your home," said the angel. The wealthy man was flabbergasted. "I don't understand. The other homes were so beautiful. Why is my home so tiny?" The angel smiled sadly, "I'm sorry," he said, "We did all we could with what you sent us to work with."

50. You Feed Them

Illustration

King Duncan

A man was packing a shipment of food for the poor people of Appalachia. He was separating beans from powdered milk, and canned vegetables from canned meats. Reaching into a box filled with various cans, he pulled out a little brown paper sack. Apparently one of the pupils had brought something different from the items on the suggested list. Out of the paper bag fell a peanut butter sandwich, an apple, and a cookie. Crayoned in large letters was a little girl's name, 'Christy Room 104.' She had given up her lunch for some hungry person.

Jesus says to us, "You feed them!" This is an incredibly rich world. We are rich people and we serve a rich God. "You feed them!"

Showing 1 to 50 of 276 results