Sermon and Worship Resources

Ephesians 5:22-33 · Wives and Husbands

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Mutual Submission

Ephesians 5:22-33

Sermon
by Will Willimon

Today, Orientation Sunday, we welcome Freshmen to Duke. Orientation, that's when you learn the "in's and out's" of life here, when you get oriented to expectations of the university. A big part of Orientation is the acquisition of a new vocabulary. Every new place has its own language, its own special words. If you are new, you are learning the meaning of such verbal mysteries as ASDU, the Black and Blue Room, Grosschem. Soon, with a little practice, you'll be able to converse like a native!

Each generation has its own vocabulary. For my generation it was "power to the people," "civil rights," "involvement," and "change." When someone looks back on the 1980's they will think of words like, "Yuppie," and "disarmament," and "upscale." But I suspect one word will be remembered as the key to the seventies and eighties -- "liberation." Ours is an age of the liberation of just about everybody. First came black liberation, and then women's liberation; now there's gay liberation, and animal liberation, men's liberation. Duke Divinity School is a center for the study of "Liberation Theology." And we can applaud the advances in human dignity which the word "liberation" signifies. Ours is an age of freedom, increasing independence from outworn social restraints, and liberation from stultifying prejudice. This is good.

Yet this makes all the more embarrassing today's word from scripture. For today's word from Ephesians 5 is not freedom, independence, or liberation—words our generation celebrates—but rather the word for today is SUBMISSION—a word which our generation abhors.

Among all the ugly words which crop up in scripture, what could be uglier than this? "Wives, be subject to your husbands" is not one of the loftier biblical injunctions. No wonder that today's Epistle, Ephesians 5, is one of the more unpopular pieces of scripture -- except among Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and their devotees. (And you know what they're like.) Let us therefore be done with Ephesians 5, placing it upon the junk heap of other biblical passages urge the bashing of little babies' heads against stones and the obedience of slaves to masters. Submission is not our word.

Yet before you jettison Ephesians 5, please note that commentators call this one of the most abused and misinterpreted passages in the whole Bible. How so?

I call your attention to four insights about this passage:

1. Paul probably borrowed this listing of marital duties from the conventional wisdom of the his day. Hellenistic Judaism had many of these household codes. Most of this is not specifically Christian. It was part of the culture. Paul merely took conventional household wisdom and put a Christian veneer over it. Yet there's more.

2. Wives are instructed to "be subject to your husbands." Given the time and the place the Bible was written, there is nothing surprising in that statement. Paul, like any Near Eastern person of the day, looked upon women as subservient to their husbands.

3. Yet here is this surprise: Not only are wives told to be submissive to their husbands (which wasn't news) but husbands are also enjoined to "love your wives."(v. 25) In fact, much more space is given to the duties of husbands, than to those of wives. Evidently Paul feels that husbands need more instruction in how to behave in marriage than wives. Whereas wives are asked to be subject to their husbands, husbands are told to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."( v.25) How did Christ love the church? By dying for the church, giving up his life for the church's sake. That's how husbands are urged to love their wives. The complete, sacrificial, selfless love of Christ is the model for husbands.

4. The writer goes even further saying that "Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies."(v.28) This is the Hebrew principle that one must love one's neighbor as oneself. (Lev. 19:18, Matt. 7:12)

All of this means that any use of this passage to justify feminine subjugation in marriage or anywhere else is a calloused misreading of the text. That's not what it says, in spite of what Jerry Falwell says. Indeed, considered in its original context, Ephesians 5 is a quite radical statement with its emphasis on the responsibility of husbands.

Admittedly, submission is being urged. Everything follows from the opening statement: Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Submission is the guiding principle. But it is not the submission of a lowly wife lorded over by a monarchial husband. It is MUTUAL submission of husband and wife because of their relationship to Christ who subjected himself to the world in order to love the world. For Paul, the human relationship of marriage derives its form from the divine-human relationship of Christ to his church. Elsewhere Paul says, "Through love be servants of one another".(Gal. 5:13)

And yet, I fail to hear a great sigh of relief from the congregation. Is it because, even though we are not talking about subjection of women to men, we are still talking about submission? Granted, we're talking about MUTUAL submission. but are we any less offended? Many find the language of submission and subordination offensive. To the extent that such scripture has been used to justify husbands' exploitation of their wives, we should be offended. But is there not an even greater offense behind Ephesians 5?

Remember, our word is "liberation" -- freedom, autonomy, independence not service, interdependence, submission (mutual or otherwise). Our world was built by cowboys, explorers, entrepreneurs; a nation of individuals bent on making a difference, Lone Rangers and Annie Oakleys standing on their own two feet. Why you are here at Duke?

When I was in highschool, I had second thoughts about whether or not I really wanted to go to college. It only took one summer of work in a Greenville textile factory, with a supervisor looking over my shoulder and barking orders, and production quotas always pushing me, and the same, boring job day after day, to assure me that I didn't want to subject myself to this for the rest of my life. That factory frightened me into good grades my Freshman Year. In other words, I went into higher education to get liberated, freed from the enslavement of somebody else's timeclock, and somebody else's expectations.

"When I get my degree," I said to myself, "I’ll be my own boss."

So Hannah Arendt noted that most of us, when we ponder our freedom, think more in terms of our freedom FROM rather than our freedom TO. Duke: Freedom from Mama and Daddy's curfews, from a life in somebody else's shop, from the outmoded values of yesterday.

My Freshman year I was introduced to Abraham Maslow and his theory of self-actualization. Later, I met Maslow's friends -- Carl Rogers, Erich Fromm, as well as their children -- Gail Sheehy's PASSAGES, and dozens of other books on self-assertiveness and self-improvement. Maslow believed that people -- particularly those of us who are educated, upwardly mobile, and creative, people like you meet at a university -- ascend through various stages of personal development, shedding other's claims upon us, until we become autonomous and relatively independent of the influences of others. We thus become "self-actualized," created by ourselves. Life is the therapeutic process of realizing your human-potential through a journey inward, deeper and deeper into your true self. That's where your true self is said to be, somewhere deep inside of you. Maslow's the psychology of self-fulfillment, justifies me as a wholly autonomous, solitary, contained individual. If it feels good to you do it. If it's what you want -- get it. Dr. Ruth is everybody.

And yet, here is scripture which says, like many biblical passages, that you can't "find yourself," by looking inward. You are a web of relationship and responsibilities to others, that's who you are. You can't find "you" the Bible suggests, by looking only at you. By concentrating only on your feelings, needs, wants and desires and by learning to assert them more freely, to be liberated , you do not become a more creative self; you become more self-centered, smaller, more isolated. You haven't grown; you have shrunk.

A recent survey by Yankelovich, Skelly, and White shows that 70 percent of Americans say that, while they have many acquaintances, they have fewer close friends. Well, what do we expect? We got liberation but also loneliness. We got what we asked for. In the early 1970's 96 percent of all Americans declared themselves dedicated to the ideal of two people sharing a life and a home together. By 1980, exactly the same percentage of people felt the same way. Yet in this same decade, from 1970 to 1980, the number of single households doubled, expanding so fast that many observers predicted that the conventional couple was doomed to extinction. Even marriage, the most intimate of human relationships, is viewed by many as a contract negotiated for the mutual benefit of autonomous individuals who relentlessly scan their feelings.

Well, what do we want?

Why are you here? What do you want? How do you propose to get it here at Duke? Those are good questions for an Orientation Sunday. I dare say, not many of us are here looking for submission to anybody or anything and, alas, that may be just what we'll get.

I serve on the board of a small, church related college. Not long ago we hired an outside consultant to study the college and its program and tell us what we were doing well, what we were doing poorly. In his final report to the Board, he said, "At these small colleges, you often get a large number of students who tend to be dependent. They're not seeking maturity; they're looking for IN LOCO PARENTIS. They want to be Mama and Daddyed while they're here. Then you get faculty who want to play Mama and Daddy. I think the college ought to work harder to help them ‘grow up."'

An old, worn out preacher spoke up. "Well, I guess it all depends on your definition of an adult. How do you define being "grown up"?

"You know what maturity looks like," responded the consultant "An adult is someone who is independent, autonomous, liberated from dependencies on others, free."

"Well, I was thinking," said the old preacher, "and every adult whom I know who believes that is in big trouble right now."

Do you believe, as you look at the people seated beside you in the pew, as you walk across campus, as you stand in line at the cafeteria, as we deal with one another as roommates, classmates, teachers, students; that it's possible to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Is such submission out of date, passe' or is it only -- difficult?

Duke's John Westerhoff tells of being called in to consult about problems encountered by government teachers at a school for Native Americans out west somewhere. One of the teachers confessed to him that she was shocked by the lack of morals among the Native American children. "They cheat constantly," she said. "We can't make them stop."

When he interviewed the children and asked them why they all looked on each others' papers during tests, they told him, "If someone in the tribe knows, he should tell everyone who doesn't know. If someone in the tribe does not know, he should go ask someone who knows."

Westerhoff realized that he was in a culture with a very different orientation than his own. What we have been taught to call cheating, they called cooperation. Which cultural stance is more healthy? One that schools children to be constant competitors, to hold tight to what they have lest someone else tries to take it from them; or a culture which says, "We're all in this together. Let's help each other get through it. Let the weak submit to the expertise of the strong and the strong submit to the needs of the weak."?

Well, we're all here because we have functioned so ably in a culture where competition is the name of the game and we, the strong, the able, the independent, finished first or close to it. And if we do well, in four years we'll have our degree, our ticket to success in medicine, or law, or business, insuring that we need never submit to anyone.

That's why today's word from scripture, Ephesians five, written in a bygone era, by a bygone person, has nothing to say to us.

Duke University, Duke Chapel Sermons, by Will Willimon

Overview and Insights · Walk Carefully (5:15–6:9)

Overview: Paul cautions believers to walk carefully using three contrasts: not as unwise, but as wise (5:15); not as foolish, but with understanding (5:17); and not getting drunk, but being filled with the Spirit (5:18). He further explains this third contrast. At conversion, Christians are sealed with the Spirit (a one-time event explained in 1:13–14) but throughout life are encouraged to be filled with the Spirit (a repeated experience). Three results of being filled with the Spirit are mentioned in 5:19–21: worship, gratitude, and mutual submission. These are distinguishing characteristics of the people of God. In 5:22–6:9, Paul explains how this final characteristic (mutual submission) is applied within the Christian household.

Insight: Household Codes · Three passages in the New Testam…

The Baker Bible Handbook by J. Daniel Hays and J. Scott Duvall, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Ephesians 5:22-33 · Wives and Husbands

Commentary · Wisdom as Mutual Submission

Using the culturally familiar format of the household code (and Christianizing it in the process), Paul explains mutual submission in three domestic relationships as a mark of Spirit-filled living. In each of the three parallel domestic relationships, the “weaker” party is addressed first. Thus in the first set (5:21–33), wives are instructed to submit to their (own) husbands in everything, as they would to the Lord Jesus (5:22). Paul’s rationale is that just as Christ is head and savior of the church, so the husband is head of the wife (5:23–24). There is nothing surprising here; it is standard cultural wisdom. Yet with tragic irony this text has served for centuries to sanctify the abuse of women within Christ’s church, a travesty occurring in part because interpreters stop interpreting at verse 24.

Paul Christianizes the marital section of the household code not only by introducing the model of Christ and the church but also through what he proceeds to say to husbands. His instructions to them (5:25–33) occupy three times the space he uses for wives, with obvious implications. The entire section is still governed by verse 21: husbands are to submit to their wives. As if that were not enough, the manner of submission, also modeled on Christ and the church, requires a husband to love his wife by giving himself up for her. How this self-sacrifice might look in a particular situation Paul leaves to the imagination.

He also describes the Christlike motivation for husbandly self-giving. As with Christ and the church, the purpose is to foster the wife’s full potential as God’s creation. The entire explanation (5:26–27) revolves around Christ’s plans for humanity’s perfection, but the principle applies equally to how husbands aim to enhance the humanly glory of the person to whom each has joined himself. It is as if a husband’s wife is an extension of his own body (5:28–29), again just as the church is Christ’s body (5:30). This bodily, dual-person identity is already anchored in Genesis 2:24, but Paul regards Christ’s identity with the church as superseding even the law (5:32). Correspondingly implicit in this is the perfecting of husbands: they become Christlike themselves when they, like Christ, die for another.

Whether women have been divinely programmed to submit to a self-denying husband, as if by natural default, is highly debatable. It is just as likely that Paul’s instructions in verses 22–24 are intended to make the best of the sin-warped culture he lived in. In terms of mutual submission, a husband is perhaps just as likely to submit willingly to a wife who genuinely “dies” for him as a wife is to a husband who loves her like this. However that may be, Paul has called for mutual submission (5:33), which at least implies that husbands die to themselves for the sake of their wives, and probably that wives die to themselves for the sake of respecting their husbands. There could hardly be a more profound way to express the home-based lifestyle that promotes “the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (4:3).

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

What motivates the author to move from general admonitions on moral life and corporate worship to specific instructions regarding household relationships? Beare suggests that the arrangement of material follows the conventional pattern of Hellenistic philosophical literature, which concluded its doctrinal exposition with a brief presentation of the social code (p. 716). Another author places the code, particularly this section on husbands and wives, within the context of the ethical instructions that preceded it: “What,” he asks, “was more necessary than to counter immorality with a true doctrine of man and wife?” (Houlden, p. 331).

A third suggestion comes from J. A. Robinson, who sees the code related structurally to the preceding instructions on worship (5:18–20). The church is not a fanatical and disorganized Spirit-filled community; rather, it is regulated by order and the principle of subjection of one member to another (p. 123).

A fourth theory explains the arrangement in Ephesians on the basis of Colossians, which, according to a number of commentators, the author was using as a model. Colossians, likewise, has a section on instruction and worship (3:16–17) before it moves on to discuss “Personal Relations in the New Life.” The differences between the Colossian and Ephesian codes can be accounted for by the specific purpose they have in each epistle.

Finally, there is the principle of submission in 5:21. This statement relates to mutuality within the church but also forms a transition to the section on the household code. Thus, the author states a general principle; now he provides specific examples of how it is to be applied in relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, and masters and slaves.

Beyond these observations, one must rightfully question the purpose for the lengthy exposition on the relationship between husband and wife in this epistle (Ephesians has eleven verses, whereas Colossians has two). Is it the writer’s primary intention to (a) offer domestic guidance regarding the husband-wife relationship (as is the case in 6:1–9 with child-parent and master-slave)? (b) Or is he using the example of husband and wife for an ecclesiological purpose, that is, to portray the nature of the relationship between Christ and the church? (c) Or is he using Christ’s relationship to the church as a prototype for an ideal Christian marriage?

It appears that the author’s primary intention is to emphasize the quality of relationship that should exist between husband and wife. In order to do this properly, and thus bring out the deepest implications of marriage, he resorts to the analogy of Christ and the church. And what could be a more fitting analogy! As Christ is head over the church, the husband is the head of his wife (5:23); as the church submits itself to Christ, wives submit themselves to their husbands (5:24); husbands are to love their wives with the same sacrificial love as Christ, who feeds and takes care of the church, his body (5:25, 29). The Lordship of Christ and his relation to the church epitomize the ideal union between husband and wife.

But though this appears to be the author’s main purpose, the analogy works in the opposite direction as well. Throughout the epistle he has been expounding on the nature of the church and how Christ, the Head, is related to his body, the church. Marriage gives him an illustration—albeit imperfect—of how his readers can understand his ecclesiology. Thus, the church is under Christ’s authority just as the wife is under the authority of her husband (5:23); Christ loves and cares for the church in the same way that a husband ought to love his wife (5:28). The analogy has both a domestic and an ecclesiological function.

Barth, although he agrees with these two foci of this section, does not think that either is foremost in the author’s mind. Marriage, along with the other problems raised in Ephesians (e.g., sin, death, ethnic divisions, institutions), comes under the power and riches of God’s grace. “The intention of Paul is to show that ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’ gives husband and wife the basis, the strength, and the example which they need in order to live in that ‘peace to [or by] which God has called’ them (1 Cor. 7:15). The ‘peace’ between God and man, Jews and Gentiles, of which Paul spoke in Eph. 2:14–16 shall be extended into every house and praised by the conduct of husband and wife” (Eph. 4–6, p. 655).

The subjects of husband-wife relationships, the equality of women, and the role of women in the church continue to be debated and controversial issues today. With respect to Ephesians, several things must be noted: First, the author is talking about husband-wife relationships, not male-female differences and the equality, rights, roles, and so on of women. Some of those issues are dealt with in other epistles, such as 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Second, the relationship between husband and wife is not modified or qualified by arguments used elsewhere in Scripture, such as the order and glory of creation (1 Cor. 11:3–16) or the sin of Eve (1 Tim. 2:9–15). Neither is submission demonstrated by outward things such as women covering their heads in public worship (1 Cor. 11:3–16) or remaining silent in the presence of men during worship (1 Cor. 14:33–38). The submission taught in Ephesians is a mutual subordination between husband and wife that is based on the prototype of Christ and his church; Christ is the example who determines the qualities of headship and submission. Third, the teaching with respect to husband and wife—as well as the other categories in the code—must be seen within the larger context of the position of women and marriage in the first century (cf. disc. in chap. 18 on Colossians; Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 655–62).

The need for order lies behind all the instruction that encompasses the domestic code. The authors of the NT did not want Christianity to be misunderstood by society or to have new Christians feel that their freedom in Christ meant the abolition of current standards regulating domestic life. But in Ephesians the motive goes beyond “good order.” The household rules illustrate the principle of subordination that is essential to the unity and harmony within the body of Christ. The church becomes a pattern for all social order.

5:22–24 Colossians exhorts wives to be submissive (hypotassō) to their husbands because it is the proper thing for Christians to do (3:18). Submission is required on the basis of the socially acceptable norms of the day. In Ephesians, wives are called to submission for a different reason, namely, the divine order to creation that appears to be at the heart of the entire passage. This principle of “creationism” is assumed rather than explicitly stated, as it is, for example, in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“the head [kephalē] of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”).

The husband is the head of the wife. What is significant in Ephesians is that the so-called hierarchical order of creation is qualified profoundly: First, the submission of the wife to her husband is exercised within the wider principle of mutual subordination. Members within the body of Christ are to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). This, however, does not abolish the concept of authority: “The principle of mutual subordination is not applied so as to destroy the complementary principle of authority, without which there can be no ordered social life among men” (Beare, p. 717). Second, the motive for submission is placed within the context of the wife’s relationship to the Lord—wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. Those who submit must do so as if they were submitting to Christ.

Third, submission is regulated by the divine pattern of Christ’s relationship to the church. Those to whom submission is given likewise must find the pattern of their obedience and conduct in Christ. Hence the reciprocal exhortations: wives, submit as to the Lord … “just as Christ loved the church” (5:25).

From these principles it becomes obvious that a husband’s authority is regulated by Christ’s example and the principle of love. Authoritarianism, self-assertion, and self-centeredness have no place in a marriage based on these principles. Submission is not “obedience,” for the word “obey” (hypakouō) is used only for children and slaves (6:1, 5). When a husband relates to his wife out of love (agapē), there will be no problems with respect to submission or obedience.

The author is aware of the limits of his analogy, because no human, fallible husband can even approximate the extent and quality of love that Christ has for the church. This seems to be the case when he states that Christ is head of … his body, of which he is the Savior (5:23). Only Christ can be considered the savior of the body because of his work for and relationship to it. Nevertheless, “The sacrificial concern of the Lord for the salvation of the Church should have a parallel, even if at a much lower level, in the loving and sacrificial concern of the husband for the welfare of his wife” (Foulkes, p. 156).

5:25 Lest husbands come to believe that Ephesians 5:21–33 is a document legitimizing their authority to restrict the freedom of their wives, it should be noted that the admonition for husbands to love their wives puts a greater responsibility on them. Agapē means to subordinate one’s own interests, pleasures, and personality for the benefit of someone else. In fact, Christ’s love, which the husband is to model, was completely sacrificial—Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. The church is considered as the sum total of persons for whom Christ died (Rom. 4:25; 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20). Loved (past tense) refers to some definite action in the past, such as the cross.

5:26 The sense of the corporate nature of the church is carried over into the two verses describing the washing of the church and its subsequent results. At first glance, 5:26, 27 appear as an interpolation, because the thoughts of 5:25 and 5:28 join so nicely together. Yet, there is no textual evidence that these verses are of questionable origin; nor is there any suggestion that they do not fit into the context of the writer’s discussion on Christ and the church. It appears that the mention of Christ’s death for the church (5:25) triggered thoughts the author had about baptism. Perhaps he was thinking of Jesus’ death as a baptism in which his followers are to share (Mark 10:38, 39). Christian baptism is a baptism into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11, 12, 20).

Beyond the relationship between Christ’s death and baptism, another analogy appears to be at work, namely, the nuptial or ceremonial bath that a bride took before marriage. In the cultures of that day it was customary for a bride to take this bath before the marriage day. Following the bath, the bride, clad in her lovely garments, would present herself before the bridegroom. Does the author conceive of baptism as a bridal bath that sanctifies the church? Does Paul have this imagery in mind when he writes to the Corinthians, “I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him,” (2 Cor. 11:2)? On the basis of context, it seems more probable that when the author speaks of Christ giving himself up for the church (5:25), he thinks of baptism as the rite that symbolizes this death and by which the church is made clean by the washing in water.

There are a number of reasons why the thoughts in verse 26 are associated with baptism: First, there is the imagery of washing and cleansing (cleansing her by the washing with water). The cleansing of the church, which here is viewed collectively or corporately, took place when its individual members were baptized. The readers would have been aware of the baptismal teaching in the early church that conceived of baptism as a moral washing (John 13:10; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:20, 21).

Second is the relationship between baptism and the word (lit., “the washing of water by/in the word”). Baptism, in the context of the NT, was accompanied by a spoken word. Here it could mean either (a) some kind of gospel utterance; (b) a confession from the candidate in which he or she expresses faith in the Lord; (c) some prebaptismal words of instruction; or (d) a baptismal formula, such as baptism into the name of Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11) or into the names of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19). In spite of all these possibilities, it would be safe to conclude that word refers to a confession or formula that accompanied baptism.

The new, or perhaps unusual, idea of Ephesians at this point is that the entire church receives this bath. This idea of a corporate baptism may have originated in the preceding discussion on the unifying elements of the Christian church (4:4–6) in which, among other things, the writer mentions the one body (4:4) and the one baptism (4:5). Although baptism ordinarily is received by the believer, its application to the whole church is justified on the basis of the church’s corporate and unified nature.

5:27 The reason or the ultimate purpose behind the baptism of the church is now stated: to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. This is where the analogy of the bride and the bridal bath—if it is implied—breaks down. In a marriage the bride presents herself to the bridegroom; it would be inappropriate for the bridegroom to present the bride to himself (Mitton, p. 201). Here Christ takes the initiative by cleansing the bride (church) through baptism and presenting it to himself “free from all disfigurements or deformities” (Mitton, p. 204; Mitton also draws attention to the parallel between individual and corporate holiness in 1:4 and 5:27). The husband is to love his wife “not just because of the beauty he finds in her, but to make her more beautiful. Christ sees the Church in all her weaknesses and failures, and yet loves her as His body and seeks her true sanctification” (Foulkes, p. 160).

Baptism has a three-dimensional focus: It is a past event grounded in the redemptive work of Christ (“he gave himself up for her,” i.e., the church); it continues to be a present reality by which individuals are baptized into the body of Christ and by which they are cleansed. Moreover, it has an ethical and eschatological function (in order to present). Sanctification and cleansing lead to the church’s ultimate glorification and splendor.

5:28 Even though husbands cannot love their wives in the same way that Christ demonstrated his love for the church, the divine model is still in the author’s mind: Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. It appears that the husband, based on the principle that in marriage the two will become one (5:31), should regard his wife as his own body. He will, therefore, love his wife just as he loves his own body. Union and intimacy of this kind seem to agree with the phrase, he who loves his wife loves himself. Thus it is true that husband and wife are “complementary parts of one personality” (Beare, p. 725).

This interpretation fits the drift of the author’s thought better than one that sees these statements as encountering “prudential” or “pragmatic self-interest,” as Mitton, for example, suggests: “It is easier to do what is right and good if one can see at the same time that it will produce something beneficial to ourselves” (p. 205). What we have, instead, is a fusion of the bride image into the body image (Houlden, p. 334). Thus, “As the Church is Christ’s body, so in a true sense the wife is the husband’s body. Through her he extends his life” (Westcott, p. 85).

5:29 By prefacing 5:29 and 30 with After all, the NIV understands these verses as a commentary on 5:28. The love that a husband has for his own body and, consequently, for his wife is illustrated in practical ways: First, he feeds and cares for it. Once a husband has come to think of his wife as his own flesh he will feed (lit., “nourish,” ektrephō and care for (lit., “cherish,” thalpō) her as Christ does with respect to his body, the church. On the human level this is true because no one ever hated his own body. (The Greek uses the term “flesh” rather than body, probably because it anticipates the quotation in 5:31 from Gen. 2:24, which states that the two shall become one “flesh.”)

5:30 The second illustration is through being members of his body (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15—“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?”). The meaning of this phrase must be seen in relation to the previous statement on Christ’s love and care for the church: we are members of his body; therefore, Christ “feeds” and “cares for” us. Although there does not appear to be any conscious application of this truth to the readers, it would remind them of Christ’s concern for each one of them. Foulkes finds a helpful analogy from the vine and the branches in John 15: “As in the divine purpose the wife becomes part of the very life of her husband, and he nourishes and cherishes her, even so the Lord does to us as members of Himself, part of His own life that he has joined to Himself” (Foulkes, p. 161).

5:31 The OT verse (Gen. 2:24) from which the author has been drawing his imagery is finally quoted. It confirms the thoughts that he has been expounding on the relationship between husband and wife in marriage. Prior to marriage, a man and a woman are bound in an intimate relationship with their parents; but the marriage bond transcends that former bond by uniting the two as one flesh. For the author, this verse appropriately expresses the intimacy, unity, and, according to his thoughts, the identity of the husband and wife within marriage—a condition undoubtedly created by their sexual union (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16, 17, where Gen. 2:24 is used with reference to an immoral relationship with a prostitute).

Some of the older commentaries suggest that this verse has a secondary reference to Christ and how he left his heavenly home in order to be joined with his bride, the church. Moule, for example, writes: “We may reverently infer that the Apostle was guided to see in that verse a divine parable of the Coming Forth of the Lord, the Man of Men, from the Father, and His present and eternal mystical union with the true Church, His Bride” (p. 143; cf. other examples in Abbott, pp. 173, 174). Such an interpretation, however, is highly speculative and presses the analogy beyond its intended purpose as an illustration of unity.

The significance of this quotation and the context from which it is taken cannot be overstated. In Scripture, it is used as the main argument against polygamy, sexual immorality, and divorce. No one verse speaks more strongly for the sacredness and permanency of the marriage bond and for fidelity within marriage.

5:32 As appropriate as Genesis 2:24 is in describing the essence of marriage, and as overcome as the author is by the beauty of such a relationship, he still is preoccupied with thoughts about Christ and the church. Consequently, he sees in the oneness of husband and wife a great revelation that, for him, applies to Christ and the church. “The husband’s position as head and his duty of sacrificial love and devoted care for his wife are but pictures, imperfect, but the best that this life can offer, of Christ as Head, and of His love, self-sacrifice and concern for His church. The dependence of the wife on her husband and her duty of submission are a picture of how the Church should live and act towards her divine Lord” (Foulkes, p. 162).

The phrase this is a profound mystery is a translation of the Greek to mystērion touto mega estin (“this mystery is great!”). Earlier in this epistle, mystery referred to God’s plan for humankind, which had been hidden but now has been revealed (1:9; 3:3–6, 9; cf. also 6:19). Here it refers to a deep insight or a profound truth that is revealed. A mystery, in this context, is not a secret but a revelation—the union between Christ and the church.

One cannot help but notice that the references to mystery in Ephesians have unity as a theme. The mystery revealed in 3:3–6 unites Jew and Gentile into the body of Christ; in 5:32, one application of the mystery is the union between Christ and the church. In the former case there is the creation of one new people in union with himself (Christ); in the latter, the two become one. Stott notes that in Ephesians the metaphors of the church—“the body, the building and the bride—all emphasize the reality of its unity on account of its union with Christ” (p. 231). The Latin rendering of sacramentum for mystery does not legitimize viewing marriage as a sacrament (cf. Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 744–49).

The precise meaning of the author’s thoughts is by no means easy to determine—as is obvious from the variety of translations and interpretations (for a list, see Mitton, pp. 207, 8). Some commentators, in spite of the apostle’s application of Genesis 2:24 to Christ and the church, believe that it refers primarily to human marriage as the great mystery. Others concede that though that may be true in itself, the phrase but I am talking about (egō de legō) or, “it also applies,” indicates that the marriage union illustrates something even more meaningful. Beare paraphrases such thinking in the following way: “The mystery of the union of man and wife into one flesh is of far-reaching importance and clearly points itself toward some transcendental, eternal reality. I for my part take it to be a symbol of the union of Christ and the church” (Beare, p. 727).

5:33 Lest the readers be too caught up in the mystical aspects of these thoughts, and in spite of that application to Christ and the church in 5:32, the author brings them back to reality: However, each one of you.… By doing this, he returns to the more practical and human considerations that initiated the discussion about husband and wife (5:22ff.): Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Respect is a translation of the Greek phobeō, which, as in 5:21, also has the meaning of reverence. It is best understood as “awe,” such as an individual would show before God (cf. Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 662–68 for a detailed explanation). Barth protests the equation of “fear” with awe, reverence, or respect, insisting that it be given an eschatological meaning as well, that is, “conduct that heeds the crisis of the present, the last judgment, and the ultimate triumph of Christ” (Eph. 4–6, p. 667).

This section of the household code ends in much the same way as it began—submission, reverence, and love. Throughout, the author has fluctuated between two analogies: At times the husband-wife relationship served an ecclesiological function by illustrating Christ’s relationship to the church; at other times, the Christ-church analogy illustrated a domestic ideal. The result is that one has a deeper appreciation and understanding of both relationships, even though the author’s original intention was to enrich the understanding of marriage.

Additional Notes

In addition to the disc. and bibliography on the household codes in §§ 18–21 on Colossians 3:18–4:1, see F. Stagg, “The Domestic Code and Final Appeal: Ephesians 5:21–6:24,” RevExp 75 (1979), pp. 541–52. On the use of traditional material in this section, P. Sampley, And the Two Shall Become One Flesh: A Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21–33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971); Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 652–55; Mitton, pp. 208–10.

5:23 For questions regarding the legitimacy of translating head (kephalē) as “authority,” see the article by B. and A. Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?” Christianity Today, October 5, 1979, pp. 23–29. The main point the Mickelsens make is that head “does not mean ‘boss’ or ‘final authority’ … but source or origin … or beginning.”

5:26–27 For arguments pro and con on the bridal bath, see R. Batey, “Jewish Gnosticism and the ‘Hieros Gamos’ of Eph. v.21–33,” NTS 10 (1963), pp. 121–27; C. Chavasse, The Bride of Christ (London: Faber & Faber, 1939); Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the New Testament. Barth argues against a baptismal interpretation of 5:26, 27, in his Eph. 4–6, pp. 687–700.

5:31 On the use of Gen. 2:24 in Eph. 5:31, 32, see A. T. Lincoln, “The Use of the OT in Ephesians,” JSNT 14 (1982), pp. 16–57, esp. pp. 30–36. For additional thoughts on marriage, singleness, and individuality, Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 700–738; F. Stagg, “The Domestic Code and Final Appeal: Ephesians 5:21–6:24,” RevExp 76 (4, 1979), pp. 547–48.

5:32 Discussion on the concept of “sacred marriage” (hieros gamos) in Jewish and Hellenistic thought can be found in Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 738–44; Beare, pp. 726–28; and Batey, “Jewish Gnosticism and the ‘Hieros Gamos’ of Eph. v. 21–33.”

Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Arthur G. Patzia, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Blemish

The physical defect on a sacrificial animal that makes it an unacceptable offering to the Lord (Lev. 22:17 25), or the physical defect on a priest that disqualifies him from performing certain priestly functions (Lev. 21:17–24). In the NT, Christ is the once-for-all sacrificial lamb without blemish or defect. In Christ, Christians are presented to God as holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19).

Bones

Of the 206 bones that compose the adult skeletal structure, the Bible mentions only a few: rib (Gen. 1:21 22), hip (Gen. 32:25), skull (Judg. 9:53), jaw (Isa. 30:28), and legs (John 19:31–33). Nevertheless, while bones could be isolated, anatomical description tended more toward a holistic sense so that bones could refer to physical and psychological collapse in laments (Jer. 23:9) or to the entire person as a corpse (Gen. 50:25; 1 Sam. 31:13).

Overwhelmingly, however, anatomical “units” are used metaphorically for human emotions or attitudes: shame becomes “decay in [the] bones” (Prov. 12:4), fear makes “bones shake” (Job 4:14), and a sad spirit “dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22). The phrase “bone of my bones” is an idiom, a kinship formula used to describe unity and close relatives (Gen. 2:23; cf. 2 Sam. 5:1).

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.

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).

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).

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 the 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 (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (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).

Church

The nature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning of one word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a rich array of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are those metaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church, five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom of God, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and the body of Christ.

The people of God. Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in the covenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (see Exod. 6:6 7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer. 7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28; Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus, the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras who responded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin rests exclusively in God’s grace.

The kingdom of God. Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping of the two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete. The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and the second aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the age to come has broken into this age, and now the two exist simultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because the church also exists in the tension that results from the overlapping of the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as the foreshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition: first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, the church is not equal to the kingdom of God.

The church and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after the resurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about the church. However, there are early signs of the church in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general, Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in that he gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted the beginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant. More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in two passages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesus promised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition, thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of the church overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that the kingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks the intimate association between the church and the kingdom. The second passage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlike the Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.

The church and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimately related as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does not equate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christians preached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g., Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is the instrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt. 16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church become the keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.

The eschatological temple of God. Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in the future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9). Jesus hinted that he was going to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John 2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of the fulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited the church, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36). Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit in the Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; see also Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However, that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in the preceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for the church to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fully accomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In the meantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform their sacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).

The bride of Christ. The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (see Isa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied to Christ and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph. 5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia the official wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9; 21:1–2).

The body of Christ. The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to the Pauline literature and constitutes one of the most significant concepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph. 4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within the church, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body of Christ is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of the end time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage of the image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that the church, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to go spiritually. It is not yet complete.

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.

Holy

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1 Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:44 45; Heb. 12:14).

The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2 Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

Mystery

A mystery entails knowledge that is disclosed to some but withheld from others. Nothing is mysterious to God (Heb. 4:13), and he alone understands the full purpose of his will (Job 38:1 40:24; Isa. 46:10), but he also condescends to reveal portions of his will to those whom he chooses (John 16:15).

Jesus’ parables make known the character and future of God’s coming kingdom to his chosen servants, while also concealing it from those outside the circle (Matt. 13:18–23). Paul, by contrast, used “mystery” to refer to the disclosure of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity—namely, the inclusion of Gentiles within “Israel” (Rom. 11:25). This plan, foreshadowed in the OT but nevertheless hidden in essentials, had only recently been fully revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12). The gospel message is therefore the revelation of this mystery, the proclamation of the truth about Jesus Christ, now made public to the world (Eph. 3:3–9).

Reverence

Closely related to honor and respect and often translating the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence is directed primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’s sanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name (Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers, the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverence for God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance (Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2 Cor. 7:1), and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship (Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may win over unbelievers (1 Pet. 3:2).

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).

Word

“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:16 17; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).

The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.

The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).

Direct Matches

Blemish

The physical defect on a sacrificial animal that makes it an unacceptable offering to the Lord (Lev. 22:17–25), or the physical defect on a priest that disqualifies him from performing certain priestly functions (Lev. 21:17–24). In the NT, Christ is the once-for-all sacrificial lamb without blemish or defect. In Christ, Christians are presented to God as holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19).

Church

Terminology

The NT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means “gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greek the term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. In particular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of the citizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city. Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not to the citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, they were not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records three instances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

The most important background for the Christian use of the term is the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250 BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundred times, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. While qahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah, the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering, translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’s sacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, where qahal is linked with the covenant.

In the NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’s people 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although the word occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it is of special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46 times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instances in James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn from this usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and the plural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those who profess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsia designates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28; 15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23; Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).

The Nature of the Church

The people of God. Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in the covenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer. 7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28; Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus, the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras who responded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin rests exclusively in God’s grace.

To speak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT and the NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship between the church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize the matter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the church and Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuity between them.

Continuity between the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that the church and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuous relationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel in some sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding to Deut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in the wilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from the intimate association noted earlier existing between the words ekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified by the phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewed in some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein the prototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).

Second, Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OT names for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact. Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people” (1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “the elect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).

Discontinuity between the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totally identical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes the relationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological (end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is a progression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor. 5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced by the fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel, without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter as Gentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Although the church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be the permanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).

The kingdom of God. Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping of the two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete. The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and the second aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the age to come has broken into this age, and now the two exist simultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because the church also exists in the tension that results from the overlapping of the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as the foreshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition: first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, the church is not equal to the kingdom of God.

The eschatological temple of God. Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in the future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9; 1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he was going to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John 2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of the fulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited the church, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36). Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit in the Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; see also Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However, that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in the preceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for the church to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fully accomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In the meantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform their sacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).

The bride of Christ. The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (see Isa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied to Christ and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph. 5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia the official wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9; 21:1–2).

The body of Christ. The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to the Pauline literature and constitutes one of the most significant concepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph. 4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within the church, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body of Christ is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of the end time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage of the image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that the church, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to go spiritually. It is not yet complete.

Sacraments

At the heart of the expression of the church’s faith are the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The former symbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter provides spiritual sustenance for the church.

Baptism. Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Three observations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament. First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association of repentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipated Christian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance in expectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiah would exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesus as Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may be an allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes that lead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practiced baptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 // Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34; cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor. 1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). These passages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism is intimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the person with the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates the person into the community of believers.

Lord’s Supper. The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This rite symbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as it celebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblical data concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted by Christ (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of the Passover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introduced two changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened bread with a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; he replaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood on the cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early church practiced the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunction with the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). A twofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NT authors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways: participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’s Supper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination point of the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supper involves identification with the body of Christ, the community of faith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).

Worship

The ultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). The early church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James 2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met in homes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many Jewish Christians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, the established time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday, the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). The early church most probably patterned its order of worship after the synagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess. 1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col. 1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to the needy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9; James 2:15–17).

Service and Organization

Five observations emerge from the NT regarding the service and organization of the early church. First, the ministry of the church centers on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believers by God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good of others (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believer possesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third, it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christ matures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph. 4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership in the NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called “pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13), there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy” and the “laity” in the church of the first century; rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth, spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).

Father

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

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.

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.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Children, Parenting, and Education

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.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. 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 prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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.

Head

In both Testaments “head” can refer to the literal head of the physical body or be symbolic of leadership and the source of provision.

The physical head played a significant role in Jewish and Christian customs. Cutting off an opponent’s head was a symbol of victory (1 Sam. 17:46; 1 Chron. 10:9–10). The consecration of priests and kings was done by anointing the head with oil (Exod. 29:7; Lev. 8:12; 1 Sam. 10:1). Contrition and shame were displayed by covering one’s head (2 Sam. 15:30; Jer. 14:3). Grief was expressed by casting dust or ashes on the head (Job 1:20; 2 Sam. 13:19; 15:32; Lam. 2:10; Ezek. 27:30; Rev. 18:19) or shaving one’s own head (Job 1:20; Jer. 16:6). The head was the place for receiving blessing, as when Jacob laid his hands on Manasseh and Ephraim to bless them (Gen. 48:14), or guilt, as when Solomon declared that the guilt over the blood of the two Israelite commanders murdered by Joab would rest “on the head of Joab and his descendants forever” (1 Kings 2:33). Lifting up the head was associated with the giving of life in terms of success (Gen. 40:13; Judg. 8:28; Ps. 27:6).

Because of the prominent physical role of the head as the topmost and preeminent part of the body, it was often used as a symbol for leadership and the source of provision. Ancient medical writers such as Hippocrates and Galen viewed the head as the leading member of the body. Ancient political writers adapted the idea and applied it to military and political leaders, such as Nero, who was called the “head” of Rome. For the political writers in particular, the emphasis often was on the power and authority of the head.

Examples of this use of “head” as leader and source of provision in the Bible include Judg. 10:18, where the leaders of Gilead declare that whoever launches the attack against the Ammonites will be the head of the inhabitants of Gilead. After the elders successfully appeal to Jephthah, the people make him “head and commander” over them (Judg. 11:11). Christ’s ruling function is emphasized in Col. 2:10, where he is called the “head over every power and authority.” In Eph. 4:16 Paul states that Christ as the head is the one “from [whom] the whole body . . . grows and builds itself up in love.”

In the NT, Paul’s use of the metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the church and husbands and wives is particularly significant. When Paul applies the metaphor to Christ and the church, he implies that Christ provides both leadership to the body as well as the nourishment needed for its continued growth. Thus, in Col. 2:19 the head is the one “from whom the whole body . . . grows as God causes it to grow,” and in Eph. 5:23–24 Christ is “the head of the . . . body,” the one to whom the church submits.

Paul uses the head/body metaphor in reference to Christ with some flexibility. Whereas Christ is the head of the church, his body, in Ephesians and Colossians, in 1 Cor. 11:3 his headship is part of a series in which God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. In Eph. 1:22 he is head over the entire universe.

In Eph. 5:21–33 the head/body metaphor is applied to the relationship between husbands and wives, and specifically in comparison with Christ and the church’s relationship as head and body. As Christ is the head of the church, so is the husband the head of the wife. Thus, both provide leadership and growth to their respective bodies. It is important to note that the husband’s role as head is defined in terms of loving his wife and bringing her to holiness. The husband’s headship does not consist of an arbitrary power over his wife, especially one based on his own interests and whims. Rather, it is a sacrificial leadership that reflects Christ’s love for the church. It is a leadership in which he gives his life for his wife as Christ gave his life for the church and nourishes her by providing what is most beneficial for her. See also Head of the Church.

Husband

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Members

A theologically significant concept for the apostle Paul. He used the Greek word melos (“member” or “body part”) in two contexts. First, Paul identified Christians as members of Christ’s body (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 5:30). Just as all the members of the human body are critical to its functioning, all Christians, whether apparently significant or not, are critical to the church’s functioning (1 Cor. 12:12–27). Second, Paul spoke of members of the body as instruments that could be presented either for good or for evil (Rom. 6:13, 19; Col. 3:5). In the non-Christian, these members are home to the “sinful passions” (Rom. 7:5), and the “law of sin” within the members can hold prisoner even the Christian (7:23).

Savior

In the Greco-Roman world the title “savior” (sōtēr) often was ascribed to deities. It carried with it the sense of rescue and preservation for subjects of a particular god. The LXX also uses the term, sometimes with reference to God as Savior (especially in the Prophets), and sometimes referring to deliverers such as the judges.

In the NT, God is also called “Savior” (Luke 1:47). He will rescue his people from sin. At the birth of Jesus, the angel announced that the one born will be a “Savior, who is the Messiah [Christ], the Lord” (Luke 2:11 NRSV). The Samaritans believed in Jesus as the Savior (John 4:42). Peter connected the exaltation and the majesty of Christ to his salvific work (Acts 5:31). In Paul’s thinking, Christ is Savior of the body and is also the model for the husband-wife relationship (Eph. 5:23). Also for Paul, the believer is to anticipate the return of this now-exalted Savior (Phil. 3:20). Of special note are the frequent references to “God our Savior” (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:1), “Christ Jesus our Savior” (e.g., Titus 1:4), or some other such formula. John notes the Father has sent the Son to be Savior of the world (1 John 4:14).

Spot

A flaw or blemish causing a person or object to be cultically impure in some way. Certain white or reddish spots on a person’s body could indicate an infectious skin disease, rendering an Israelite ritually unclean (Lev. 13). Only animals without defect were acceptable as offerings to God (Exod. 12:5; Num. 19:2; Deut. 17:1). Figuratively, Christ’s followers are to be “spotless,” morally pure and thus qualified for fellowship with God (2 Pet. 3:14) and a pure church, free from “stain or wrinkle or any other blemish” (Eph. 5:27). Jesus “offered himself unblemished to God” (Heb. 9:14), the perfect sacrifice for sin as “a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Pet. 1:19).

Submission

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority of another, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference, compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to. Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the terms are synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliance with directions or guidance, while “submission” describes one’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within a formalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

Scripture presents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number of specific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept, and as a general portrait of relationships—for example, patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus. Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

In the OT, the use of the word “submission” (or its derivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function of translator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’s instructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit” is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use forms of “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrew expressions meaning the following: “become a slave to” (Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2 Chron. 30:8); “have a relationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch out hands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and “give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

3. Hypotagē appears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturing toward superiors; in 2 Cor. 9:13, however, it refers to obedience to a decree, in this case confession of the gospel.

4. Hypotassō is by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times in the NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using a form of “submission” (or “to be subject to”). It is used to convey the subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to the seventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s law or righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13); believers to one another (1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves to masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, and powers to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9; James 4:7); younger men to elders (1 Pet. 5:5).

A few additional uses of “submission” in some translations have other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection” (Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and “open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vivid portraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking the specific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen. 12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29); prophets toward God (1 Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3); Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission to Jesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father (Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father (Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24; 15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1 Cor. 7:3–5; 11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

Washing

Ablutions include a variety of practices found primarily in the OT through which persons washed in order to participate in the most important activities of the community, usually worship. Although terms referring to washing cover a variety of purposes, such as cleansing the hands or bathing (Gen. 18:4; Ruth 3:3; Acts 16:33; 2 Pet. 2:22), when one speaks of ablutions, the focus is upon the necessary tasks of cleansing after suffering separation from participation in the worship of the assembly because of some impurity (Deut. 21:1–9).

Sometimes ablutions were performed as a means of preparing a person for an activity of heightened importance. The priests of the OT underwent such cleansings, though they were not impure in the usual sense of the word (Exod. 30:19–21). The imagery communicated by such practices expressed the extreme holiness necessary to serve God and his people. Indeed, the sense of holiness and purity that pervaded the sacred rites of the OT was a major motivation for all levels of ablutions. For these heightened moments, however, the biblical record goes into extra detail concerning the process by which one could be washed. Special care was taken to avoid recontamination of the priest, the sacred instruments, or the camp itself, which would interfere with or render useless the rite that had been carried out (Lev. 16:4, 24, 26, 28). As with all ceremonial rites, however, the biblical interest is focused more upon the attitude and the heart of the worshiper than the rite itself. The integrity and the holiness of the participant were the true test of standing pure before God, not the ritual of cleansing (Ps. 24:3–6; Isa. 1:11–16).

In the NT, the pattern of emphasis on the inner person begun in the OT received further expression. In the book of Mark, one of the conflict passages recounts an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the extent of ritual cleansing necessary in one’s life (7:1–16). Jesus proclaimed, in full harmony with the OT, that it has always been the character of the individual that made a person clean or unclean, and that the washings of old were symbolic of that status, not determinative of it. Despite this, it seems that Jewish Christians of the first century chose to continue the practice of ritual washings. The writer of Hebrews argues that the use of such is both an illustration of the pure life (10:22) and a practice that may be considered unnecessary in light of what Christ had accomplished through his perfect work (6:2; 9:10).

Generally speaking, the source of washing for such ceremonial cleansing had to be “living water”; that is, it had to be moving. This could be obtained by pouring the water, by visiting a dedicated ceremonial bath, or by carrying out the washing in a location that already had moving water, such as a river. There is little question, based upon the similarities of early baptismal practices and the ceremonial baths uncovered at Qumran and elsewhere, that NT baptism draws many of its intentions and expressions from the OT ablutions. As such, the same observations about washings made above can be drawn concerning baptism. It is symbolic of an internal reality (Eph. 5:26); it is intended as a means of expressing community between the participant and the greater body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); and it is reflective of a higher calling of Christ to live holy lives (Acts 10:47).

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).

Wife

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Ephesians 5:22-33 is mentioned in the definition.

Ablutions

Authority

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

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

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

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

Book of Hosea

“Go marry a prostitute” are the first words that the prophet Hosea hears from God in the book of Hosea (1:2 NET). His tragic marriage with Gomer provides an analogy for the relationship of God with his people Israel. God loves, confronts, pleads, becomes angry, and seeks reconciliation in this book containing words of judgment as well as hope.

The book of Hosea is one of the twelve Minor Prophets, but among these books Hosea is preeminent. It is the longest and appears first canonically, and it was one of the first of all the prophetic books to be written down. The emotive poetry depicting God’s heartbreak over the trauma of his broken relationship with his people is hardly matched anywhere else in Scripture.

Historical Background

The first verse sets the book into the reigns of Jeroboam II of Israel (784–748 BC) and Uzziah (769–733 BC), Jotham (758–743 BC), Ahaz (733–727 BC), and Hezekiah (727–698 BC) of Judah. It is difficult to pinpoint when it was during the reign of Jeroboam II that Hosea began his ministry or how far into the reign of Hezekiah he served. Scholars generally date Hosea’s ministry between 760 and 720 BC.

During Jeroboam’s reign, Israel expanded its borders (2 Kings 14:25, 28) due to the relative weakness of its two traditional northern enemies, Assyria and Aram. This expansion led to economic prosperity for the upper classes but oppression for the lower classes, which was condemned by the prophet Amos. Shortly after the death of Jeroboam, Tiglath-pileser III came to the throne of Assyria in 744 BC, and as Assyrian influence began to increase in Israel, political stability for the nation declined. The reigns of Israel’s final rulers were characterized by chaos, as six kings reigned over Israel in less than one generation (2 Kings 15:8–31; 17:1–6). Jeroboam’s son Zechariah was killed by Shallum, who was killed by Menahem, who was succeeded by his son Pekahiah, who was killed by Pekah, who was killed by Hoshea, who was exiled by Assyria.

Hosea’s oracles generally target the northern kingdom, with over forty references to “Israel” scattered throughout the book (e.g., 1:4–6), but the tribe of Ephraim is also mentioned over thirty times (e.g., 4:17; 5:3, 5). As the most influential northern tribe, Ephraim is often used synonymously for Israel, but some of the references to Ephraim may be due to the fact that after Assyria conquered and exiled most of Israel in 733 BC, Ephraim was all that remained until its destruction in 722 BC.

Outline

I. Historical Setting (1:1)

II. Hosea’s Family (1:2–2:1)

III. God’s Family (2:2–23)

IV. God Calls Hosea to Bring Gomer Back (3:1–5)

V. The First Set of Messages (4:1–11:11)

VI. The Second Set of Messages (11:12–14:9)

Message

The message of the book of Hosea is God’s; his voice dominates the book, whether he is speaking to the prophet or to the entire nation. While markers of God’s speech are concentrated in the first three chapters (1:2, 4, 6, 9; 2:1, 13, 16, 21; 3:1), clearly God is speaking in most of the remainder of the book (4:1; 11:11). Hosea’s first-person perspective appears explicitly only as he narrates how God has told him to go and bring back his wife, Gomer (3:1–5). Hosea may be speaking as the nation is called to return to God (6:1–3; 14:1–3), or these calls may be coming from the people. God also uses quotes from the people to illustrate his points (8:2; 9:7; 10:3).

God’s initial commission to Hosea to marry the prostitute Gomer serves as the frame on which to hang the content of the book. God’s primary message is that the people of Israel have been unfaithful to the covenant that they had initially established at Sinai after he had delivered them from enslavement in Egypt. God had said that he would be their God, and Israel would be his people (Exod. 6:7), so they had made a covenant that the people promised to obey (24:1–8). Just as Hosea’s heart has been broken by the unfaithfulness of his wife, God has been devastated by Israel’s adulterous behavior. Gomer gives birth to three children: Jezreel (“God Sows”), Lo-Ruhamah (“Not Pitied”), and Lo-Ammi (“Not My People”). The name of each child has significance in the book: “Jezreel” because God is going to judge Jeroboam’s house for the blood shed by his great-grandfather Jehu in the valley of Jezreel (see 2 Kings 9:36–37; 10:6–7, 11); “Not Pitied” because God will no longer show mercy to the nation; “Not My People” because he is no longer their God and they are no longer his people. The themes of sowing (Hos. 2:23; 8:7; 10:12), God showing pity (2:1, 4, 23; 14:3), and Israel as the people of God (2:1, 23; 4:6, 8, 12; 6:11; 11:7) reappear throughout the book.

The book cycles through patterns of accusation, punishment, and hope. God accuses his people of being unfaithful to their covenant. This unfaithfulness takes two primary forms: worship of foreign idols and reliance on foreign nations. Despite their commitment to follow God’s laws, they have blatantly broken the first two commandments: have no other gods, and make no idols (Exod. 20:3–4). The first ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam I, had constructed two calves of gold, one in Dan and one in Bethel (1 Kings 12:25–33), similar to the one made by Aaron in the wilderness (Exod. 32:4). Jeroboam I’s golden calves have survived beyond the reign of Jeroboam II and contributed to Israelite apostasy during the period of the entire northern monarchy. The book of Hosea specifically condemns calf worship (8:5–6; 10:5), which even took the form of kissing the calves (13:2). Israel’s idolatry also involved consulting blocks of wood instead of God (4:12), joining themselves to idols (4:17), constructing idols of silver and gold (8:4), and sacrificing to idols (10:5).

Because God wants Israel to be exclusively committed to him, he has forbidden them from making treaties with other nations (Exod. 34:12, 15; Deut. 7:2; 23:6). The book of Hosea describes their disobedience to this command in their dealings with Assyria and Egypt. God accuses them of depending on Assyria (Hos. 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 12:1) and declares that the calf they worship will be exiled to Assyria (10:6), and Assyria will become their king (11:5). God reminds Israel of the Egyptian deliverance in the past (2:15; 11:1; 12:13; 13:4), he condemns their reliance on Egypt in the present (7:11, 16; 12:1), and he proclaims that they will return to Egypt in the future (8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5). The “return to Egypt” should be interpreted not geographically but figuratively, as a return to bondage and exile, which will be performed by Assyria first in 733 BC and finally in 722 BC.

Israel’s sins provoke God’s anger (5:10; 8:5; 13:11) and prompt him to declare that he will punish his people (1:4; 2:13; 4:9; 5:2, 9; 8:13; 9:7, 9; 10:10). The punishment sent by God specifically targets Israel’s king, though it is difficult to be certain which one. Jehu’s house is the subject of the first royal condemnation (1:4–5), which may refer to the assassination of Zechariah, Jeroboam II’s son (2 Kings 15:8–10). The king is called to listen to the judgment because it pertains to him (Hos. 5:1). Some of Israel’s kings have already fallen (7:7), which may refer to the period of monarchical instability after Jeroboam II. Eventually, Israel’s king will be completely cut off (3:4; 10:3, 7, 15; 13:10), which happened in 722 BC, when Assyria destroyed the capital Samaria.

In the midst of accusation and punishment, the book also includes words of hope, specifically that Israel will return to its God, and their relationship will be restored. Three times the people are called to return to God: in the beginning (2:14–23), in the middle (6:1–3), and at the end of the book (14:1–3). God views his people not only as his wife but also as his children (11:1–4), and he promises that because of his compassion his anger will cease (11:8–9) and he will lead his children as they return to their homes (11:11). In a surprising twist, immediately after telling Hosea to give the three children names signifying judgment (1:4–9), God declares that Israel will be called the “children of the living God,” and the children’s names change to “Ammi” (“My People”) and “Ruhamah” (“Pity”) (1:10–2:1 NET). God also promises that the people of Israel will be as numerous as the sand of the seashore (1:10), recalling his promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17).

Both parental and marital imagery from the book of Hosea appear elsewhere in Scripture. While in Hosea the line “out of Egypt I called my son” (11:1) refers to God bringing his “children” out of Egyptian bondage, Matthew shows how it also describes early events in Jesus’ life as his family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15). Jeremiah graphically describes the sins of Judah as adultery and faithlessness (Jer. 3:1–25). Paul compares the relationship between a husband and a wife to that of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:23–24). The book of Revelation concludes by describing how the residents of the new Jerusalem will be adorned like a bride for her husband, and they will be his people and he will be their God (Rev. 21:2–9; 22:17).

Book of Song of Songs

By its title, Song of Songs claims to be the most sublime song of all. The history of its interpretation also reveals that it may be the most misunderstood song as well. The reader of this book is dazzled by its intensity and honest expression of desire for intimate relationship. No wonder that early theologians who thought that the body was only a temporary casing for the all-important spirit felt that this book could not be talking about what it appeared to be talking about. Thus, for example, when the woman describes the man as a sachet of myrrh lodged between her breasts (1:13), this had to be a reference to Christ spanning the OT and the NT (so Cyril of Alexandria). But over time this book could not be suppressed by such interpretive strategies. Today most readily acknowledge that Song of Songs is love poetry that articulates human desires as well as our joys and worries.

Genre, Structure, and Outline

As implied by the preceding paragraph, Song of Songs is not an allegory. It is love poetry, in which a man and a woman express their deepest longings and desires to each other. They want to be in each other’s passionate embrace. This book celebrates love between a man and a woman.

Some interpreters believe that Song of Songs is a drama or at least tells a story of a particular love relationship. Although there are almost as many different suggestions of a story as there are advocates of the so-called dramatic approach, two main types emerge. One approach believes that there are two characters, a lover and his beloved, and the plot entails their growing relationship, sometimes following the pattern of courtship, engagement, marriage, honeymoon, and so forth. Occasionally this plot is given a historical background, usually with Solomon as the man (thanks to the superscription in 1:1) and a woman who goes by the name of the “Shulammite” (6:13 [curiously, apparently a feminine form of the name “Solomon”]). On the other hand, other interpretations introduce yet a third character, an unnamed shepherd boy, who is the woman’s true love. Thus, the story is that of a love triangle. Solomon is trying or has succeeded in adding the woman to his harem, but she retains her true love toward the shepherd boy. Thus, Song of Songs is the story of true love’s triumph over power and wealth.

Other interpreters point out that if it is difficult to determine how many characters are in this supposed plot or the exact contour of the story, then interpreters must be reading too much into the book to make it work. After all, there is no narrator in the book providing narrative guidelines to the reader. Indeed, there are not even indications of who is speaking when (thus modern translations insert italicized text headings such as “Beloved,” “Lover,” and “Friends” to identify speakers).

Such interpreters argue that Song of Songs does not tell a story but rather is a kind of “love Psalter” containing a number of different love poems. In other words, it is an anthology, a collection, of love poems united by a consistency of character and imagery as well as the occasional recurrent refrain. The book is truly a “Song [composed] of [many] Songs.” The exact number of poems in this anthology can be debated and is unimportant for their interpretation. The important point is that readers do not force connections between poems that are not there. However, the following division, after the superscription (1:1) into twenty-three poems may not be far off the mark.

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)

III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)

IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)

V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)

VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)

VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)

VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)

IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)

X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)

XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)

XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)

XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)

XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)

XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)

XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)

XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)

XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)

XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)

XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)

XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)

XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)

XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)

XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)

Date and Authorship

The conclusion that Song of Songs is a collection of love poems has implications for the date and authorship of the book. It is true that the superscription (1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and this connection must be taken seriously because there is no indication that the superscription is not a part of the canonical final form of the book. In light of a similar superscription in the book of Proverbs, however, this does not mean that Solomon wrote the entire book or that it is about him. Indeed, Solomon’s track record in love is dubious both in the book (Song 8:11–12) and outside it (1 Kings 11:1–13). Perhaps as in Proverbs, he is considered the fountainhead of the composition of the book, and like Psalms and Proverbs, the book came into existence over a lengthy period of time and as a result of several composers. If so, the final form bears the mark of a single editor who brought it all together at an unknown date within the period of the formation of the OT.

Theological Message

Song of Songs celebrates love between a man and a woman. It reminds the people of God that intimate relationship is a divine gift that should be enjoyed. Although joy is indeed the dominant note of the book, the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that has its disappointments (so begins the poem in 5:2–6:3). Accordingly, the woman makes sure that the young girls who are watching and looking at her understand that it is important not to hurry love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).

But we must not read Song of Songs in isolation from the rest of the canon. This book describes the man and the woman in the garden as naked and enjoying each other. How can the reader not think of the garden of Eden? God created a man and a woman and established marriage as a source of mutual joy (Gen. 2:23–25). The next chapter, however, narrates the fall, where the rebellion against God results in alienation not only between God and Adam and Eve, but also between Adam and Eve. Their estrangement results in their efforts to cover themselves from the gaze of the other and their ejection from the garden. The poems of Song of Songs, then, may be seen as the story of the “already but not yet” redemption of sexuality.

Last, the broader canon frequently uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between God and his creatures (e.g., Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3). In other words, the more we learn about intimate marital relationships, the more we learn about our intimate relationship with God. Thus, Song of Songs may be read in a way that deepens our understanding of God and his love toward his people (cf. Eph. 5:21–33).

Continuing Significance

The opening chapters of Genesis describe human beings as creatures who were created for relationship, relationship with God to be sure, but also relationship with other people. Genesis 2:18–25 narrates the origin of the institution that formalizes the most intimate of human relationships, that between a man and a woman in marriage. The story continues in Gen. 3 on a tragic note when, because of sin, a barrier is erected between the man and the woman. Song of Songs poetically celebrates the redemption of the marriage relationship and encourages couples to grow closer to each other. The poems are not a how-to manual for courtship or intimate behavior, but they invite couples to cultivate their own love language and intimacies.

Bride

In both Testaments of Scripture, marriage is used to illustrate the relationship between God and his chosen people. Isaiah and Jeremiah portray Israel as the bride of Yahweh, sometimes to emphasize his love for her, sometimes to lament her unfaithfulness to him. Isaiah says that Yahweh will one day rejoice over Israel “as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride” (Isa. 62:5; cf. 61:10). Jeremiah expresses God’s disappointment that his bride (Israel) has lost her first love for him and even forgotten him (Jer. 2:2, 32). Hosea uses this metaphor repeatedly to proclaim Yahweh’s undying love for his adulterous wife, the people of Israel (Hos. 1–3).

In the NT, the church becomes the bride of Christ, both in Paul’s letters and in the book of Revelation (Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17). Paul compares the church to a bride expressly in Eph. 5, where the love of Christ for his church sets an example for ordinary husbands: they must love their wives “as Christ loved the church,” that is, sacrificially (v. 25). In Revelation the church adorns herself with righteous acts for the sake of Christ, her groom (19:6). Further along in Revelation, the new Jerusalem itself becomes the “bride” of Christ, inhabited by his saved people, the church (21:9–10).

The “bride” metaphor communicates powerfully in these contexts because of the duties that ancient marriages presupposed. Husbands were to lead, protect, and provide for their wives, and God does this perfectly for his people. He leads them safely out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and on to victory in battle. They are blessed in faithfulness, and God is slow to anger in spite of their adultery against him. When his people need a savior, he provides the Bridegroom-Messiah, through whom he gives lasting forgiveness, peace, and rest. On the other hand, the church must honor her Savior-Husband, who finds in her obedience the greatest beauty.

Canticles

Genre, Structure, and Outline

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)

III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)

IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)

V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)

VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)

VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)

VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)

IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)

X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)

XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)

XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)

XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)

XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)

XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)

XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)

XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)

XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)

XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)

XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)

XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)

XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)

XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)

XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)

Date and Authorship

Theological Message

Continuing Significance

Child

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Clean

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Cleaned

Old Testament

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

New Testament

Cleanliness

Old Testament

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

New Testament

Cleanness

Old Testament

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

New Testament

Elect Lady

The KJV and RSV term for the recipient of the letter of 2 John (v. 1). Not much is known about the identity of this “lady chosen by God” (NIV), though there are several possibilities. The phrase may refer to a personal friend or a prominent church member of John’s acquaintance, along with her biological children. More probably, however, John uses the phrase as a metaphor for a particular church community and its members, a usage consistent with other NT images of the church (see Eph. 5:25–27; cf. Rev. 21:2).

Family

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Fornication

The English verb “fornicate” comes from a Latin term describing the vaulted or arched structure of a ceiling, seen especially in the basements of buildings. Because prostitutes in the ancient world met clients under “fornicated” arches, the sexual usage of the term naturally followed. To fornicate was to visit a brothel, in the first instance. Later the term acquired the more general sense of illicit sexual activity. Thus, in the KJV, words such as “fornication” and “fornicate” are chosen to translate the NT Greek term porneia, which refers generically to sexual sin. Adulterers, homosexuals, pedophiles, and adults engaged in extramarital affairs were guilty of porneia, regardless of more specific labels that may apply.

Genesis 1:27 traces human sexuality back to the choice of God himself, who made male and female human beings. He might have done otherwise, but he created human beings as men and women, who complement each other’s unique characteristics. The command “Be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:28) presupposes an attraction between men and women, leading to sexual activity and consequent reproduction. Adam could therefore say of Eve, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23), given how closely he relates to her and vice versa. The two become “one flesh” through sexual activity, as Paul’s use of Gen. 2:24 makes clear. In 1 Cor. 6:16 the apostle argues that men who consort with prostitutes become one flesh with them, based on what Gen 2:24 implies; in this sense, sexual activity unifies. Thus, from a biblical standpoint, there is no such thing as “casual sex.”

In Eph. 5:22–33 Paul argues that an analogy exists between the oneness of flesh that husbands and wives experience and the union of Christ with his bride, the church. Both relationships put servant leadership on display; and as such, a healthy marriage exposes fornication for the fraud that it is. Fornication divorces physical unity from the multidimensional oneness that husbands and wives are privileged to share.

Quite apart from the physical defects of porneia—most evident in such cases as homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia—it is also diseased at the social level. For these deviations are, of necessity, exploitative and sterile, and none of them could involve sacrificial leadership tending toward the holiness of husbands and wives. They are merely predatory. We therefore are not surprised to find the Bible forbidding homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26–27), bestiality (Lev. 18:23), rape (Deut. 22:23–29), adultery (Exod. 20:14), and various forms of sexual adventurism (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:18–20; 1 Thess. 4:3–8), including extramarital intercourse (Deut. 22:13–21).

Gender Equality

Although the Bible is dominated by a patriarchal perspective, as one would expect from the ancient Near East, there is also a valuing of women that comes to the surface. Although this falls short of what we would call “gender equality” today, the Bible does make overtures in that direction. Already in the Genesis creation story, men and women are described as the two halves of humanity, who together participate in the mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:26–28). Eve is created from the side of Adam, indicating equality in their very beings (2:21–23).

In his own ministry, Jesus includes women in ways that were unusual for his context. In first-century Palestine, learning from spiritual teachers was a privilege reserved exclusively for men. However, in the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), Jesus commends Mary for breaking her expected role as a woman in order to follow him and learn at his feet. Martha, however, receives a sharp rebuke for allowing domestic duties to hinder her discipleship. Jesus’ first resurrection appearance is to women in all of the Gospels, even though the testimony of a woman was generally not considered valid in legal matters in first-century Palestine (although rabbinic literature suggests it was considered valid testimony for a woman to confirm a man’s death). Jesus takes particular efforts to elevate the position of women, despite a possible tarnishing of his public image.

The concern for greater gender equality extends into the rest of the NT. Paul says that in Christ all are one regardless of ethnicity, status, or gender (Gal. 3:28). Paul also refers to women as coworkers in the gospel (Rom. 16:3) and as deacons (16:1). Although frequently cited in order to support a hierarchal family structure, the household codes (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7) are a step toward gender equality in the Greco-Roman culture, since secular household codes usually placed responsibilities on wives, not husbands. That Paul gives responsibilities to husbands is a significant shift toward a mutuality of devotion and obligation.

Household

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Impurity

Old Testament

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

New Testament

Iniquity

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin; hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, or portrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of the driving forces of the entire Bible.

Sin in the Bible

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

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

In Gen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on full display. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able to eradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humans gathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make a name for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them to scatter across the earth (11:1–9).

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

Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke its covenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under the reign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people, including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives and concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry became rampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judah in 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised to raise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

After God’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that the great prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, were at hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remained under foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell of Solomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Before long, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning away from him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administration of the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failed to properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

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

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

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

Definition and Terminology

Definition of sin. Although no definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of the concept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conform to God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action, orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered that God’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character, so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather is a personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited to actions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen. 4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature as human beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology. The Bible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying them is not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and use of the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one of the following four categories.

1. Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’s self-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankind foolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows to humans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31). Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodliness or impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:18).

2. Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from the lawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass” picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or the crossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42; Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’s law, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45; Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violating his statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result is guilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’s law is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectively feels guilt.

3. Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what is good. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what is good (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contrasts the upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could also include here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speak of perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequent mention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievous departure from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

4. Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individual had to be in a state of purity before him. While a person could become impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating woman was impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity” clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Although it is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, in other places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Missing the mark. In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin” have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sin is reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that a person simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it is that he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9; Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional or not, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num. 15:30).

Departing from the way. Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in the wisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19). Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways, but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18). Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed by their own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery. Since God’s relationship with his people is described as a marriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32), it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness as adultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous woman vividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3). When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them of spiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52). When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate in idolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery. Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clear that Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture of its far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7; 49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to those who do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything that pleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic power that is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare (Rom. 7:7–25).

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope. The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As a result of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist human efforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under the weight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation as well (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sin affects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions, motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “total depravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful as they could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is tainted by sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as a sinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societal structures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economic markets, to name but a few.

Consequences. Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sin has consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level. Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty in God’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, and subjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20; 5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict between individuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breeds mistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closest relationships.

Conclusion

No subject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding of sin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Puritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.”

Lady Chosen by God

Marriage

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First, in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy within creation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitude is found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the careful search expressed by having the man name each of them) but in a creature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude: woman. She is created from his “rib” (a better translation is “side”), so that she is more like him than any of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rather a complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable for him,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy God had previously identified.

Second, the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by which to fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children), for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to this alone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational and social, and that isolation is not good, quite aside from considerations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage is employed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from the notion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not be considered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third, Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman in terms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula used with reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modern English expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (other translations use “cleave”) and “one flesh” are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not the only, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24 expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as the antithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. These terms (“leave” or “forsake,” “be united” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of people in the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty (Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; 1 Kings 11:2). It is also frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used of breaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in the context of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

The implication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united” to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, the covenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the new relationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantal relationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new family unit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels the kinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthy that Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family is formed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on the priority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularly striking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature of inheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ household after marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughters would leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth, the description of the woman as the man’s “helper” cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role was either subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although the term is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also used of subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determine the relative status of the helper aside from the use of the term itself.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The Bible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirements for marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce), although it does record some details of specific marriages from which some insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages often were established through an arrangement between the parents of the husband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parents of his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears to be some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife (e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the woman is sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formal certificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples of marriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidence that marriage within Israel required certification, although there is no explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to the rabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involved feasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride being accompanied to her home in a festive procession that included music and singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronounced over the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’s virginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard against false accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Another aspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although not legislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price” (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25), as well as the provision of a dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The former was a payment made by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, the latter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, the former appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price, at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife be divorced.

The Bible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those being married, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differ significantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East, where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reached puberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older. Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, and generally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosen from within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9; 27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some, but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permits Israelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners of war). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Moses married a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legal sanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

In spite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancient world in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as both an ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouse clearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflected in the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as in stories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Socially, marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world, for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house of either her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed down the male line, women without connection to the house of a man were in a very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issue in the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just on marriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see also Firstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage in ancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a number of instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). This afforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, Levirate Marriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should be noted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor the related acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundation for marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflect the biblical ideal for marriage.

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Jesus reinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine origin and lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as its inviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’ assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage is surprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as to why there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it is perhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen. 2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in the age to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found in marriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and all others.

Paul elaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christian marriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in some respects (1 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting some asymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marry within the church (2 Cor. 6:14–18, although this passage is not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married to nonbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful to their spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children (1 Cor. 7:10–16).

The NT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day, including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John 2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt. 22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt. 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Marriage is used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between God and his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize the intimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and his chosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenant is broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to the use of divorce language to describe God’s treatment of unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery and promiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16; 23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphic representation of God’s relationship with his people and, in particular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out the anticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “You will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use of marriage to image the relationship between God and his people also reflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of the relationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

The NT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as the husband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity by explicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’s use of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolic teaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12), as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining the behavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriage between the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

Parenting

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Parents

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Polygamy

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Sex

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

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

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

Nakedness

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

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

Marriage and Adultery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Control and Purity

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

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

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

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

Sexuality

Nakedness

Marriage and Adultery

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

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

Self-Control and Purity

Sin

Sin in the Bible

Definition and Terminology

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Conclusion

Song of Solomon

Genre, Structure, and Outline

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)

III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)

IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)

V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)

VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)

VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)

VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)

IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)

X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)

XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)

XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)

XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)

XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)

XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)

XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)

XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)

XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)

XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)

XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)

XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)

XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)

XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)

XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)

Date and Authorship

Theological Message

Continuing Significance

Spousal Abuse

Spousal abuse is most succinctly defined as mistreatment of one’s marriage partner through physical or emotional means. The source of abuse can be traced to the fall, as both partners struggle for control of the relationship (Gen. 3:16b). As such, abuse is an expression of a relational problem with God as well as with one’s spouse.

Because abuse is rooted in the desire to exploit another, it can never be understood as consistent with the biblical understanding of marriage. Marriage is expressed in Scripture as a covenant between two individuals who were intended to work together as persons who “correspond” to each other and are “one flesh” (Gen. 2:18 NET; 2:24). The exploitation inherent in abuse is also counter to the ideas of mutual submission and of each person in a marriage belonging to the other. Neither person is to be driven by selfish motivations (1 Cor. 7:3–5; Eph. 5:21). Ultimately, abuse is counter to the Christian message because it cannot be an expression of the nature of love (1 Cor. 13) or the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). Although abuse can be perpetrated upon either the husband or the wife, Scripture takes special care to instruct the husband to be gentle in relation to his wife, calling on him to treat her as Christ does the church and to be mindful of his significant role for the wife’s well-being (Eph. 5:28–31; 1 Pet. 3:7).

Subordination

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

Unclean Animals

Old Testament

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

New Testament

Unclean Meat

Old Testament

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

New Testament

Undefiled

Old Testament

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

New Testament

Weddings

Ceremonies marking entry into marriage. In the Bible, weddings initiate the formation of new households with the blessing of family and community.

Old Testament

In the OT, weddings were important to the patriarchs and to Israel because the new couple was expected to produce children to help fulfill the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2; 17:6; 22:15–18; Ruth 4:11–13; Isa. 65:23). Heirs were also the assurance that a man’s name remained eternally with Israel, so much so that if a man died childless, his brother was obligated to wed the widow and produce children in his name (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–10). Moreover, weddings assured that property was kept within families and tribes and also transferred in an orderly way from one generation to the next (Num. 36:1–12; Ruth 4:5; Ps. 25:13).

Multiple wives were allowed in the OT (Gen. 30:26; Deut. 21:15; 1 Sam. 1:2; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3), as were multiple concubines, who had official standing in the household, though lower than that of wives. Weddings usually were associated with a man publicly taking a wife; he acquired concubines with less fanfare (Gen. 16:1–3; 30:3–5; Judg. 19:1, 3).

OT weddings included certain distinctive elements. The bridegroom or his father paid a bride-price, or dowry, to the father of the bridegroom’s prospective wife (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16–17; 1 Sam. 18:25). The bridegroom had a more central role than the bride. He emerged from a chamber or tent to claim his wife (Ps. 19:5; Joel 2:16), who, in the case of a royal wedding, may have processed to him (Ps. 45:13–15). Both he and the bride were adorned (Song 3:11; Isa. 49:18; 61:10; Jer. 2:32); the woman was also veiled (Gen. 24:65; 29:23, 25; 38:14, 19; Song 4:1, 3; Isa. 47:1–3). Their wedding was the occasion of much rejoicing and feasting (Gen. 29:22; Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11) and lasted seven days (Gen. 29:27; Judg. 14:17). The main event was their sexual union (Isa. 62:5), which occurred on the first night (Gen. 29:23; Ruth 4:13). Unless she had been a widow, the bride was presumed to be a virgin on her wedding night, and evidence of her virginity, a bloodstained cloth, was retained as proof (Deut. 22:13–19). Virginity was essential to a previously unmarried bride; a woman who had been raped or otherwise engaged in premarital sexual relations was deemed defiled and unmarriageable to any but the first man with whom she had intercourse (Deut. 22:21; 2 Sam. 13:1–20). The importance of this underpins the shock value of the book of Hosea (see esp. 1:2), an extended metaphor that presents Israel as a prostitute nevertheless pursued by Yahweh as her husband.

New Testament

The NT continues to testify to many of these wedding traditions, significantly including the gathering of community (Matt. 22:2; John 2:1–2) in joyful celebration (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34; John 2:9–10). Wedding feasts could be lavish affairs (Matt. 22:4; John 2:6–10), with protocols regarding seating (Luke 14:8–10) and attire (Matt. 22:11–13; Rev. 19:7–9).

In the NT, these and other first-century wedding customs illustrate aspects of the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1–14) contrasts the invited guests (corrupt religious leaders in Israel) who ignored the king’s wedding invitation and murdered his servants with those people, good and evil, gathered from the streets (the downtrodden) who took their place. Their willingness to attend is qualified only by their coming properly attired in wedding robes, which by inference were provided by the king himself (Rev. 19:7–8).

The parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) plays on the understanding that weddings occurred not at a specific time but when the bridegroom was ready. His readiness was determined by, among other things, the readiness of a dwelling place for his new bride. In first-century Capernaum, this would have been a room or rooms built onto his father’s insula, a multifamily compound surrounding an interior courtyard; the same image is behind John 14:2–4. The parable, identifying the Son of Man as the bridegroom, illustrates that while his coming in glory is certain, its timing is unknown. Therefore, the bridal party is to be vigilant and prepared.

Elsewhere, Jesus is specifically named as the bridegroom preparing to marry his bride, the church (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 31–32). The wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1–11), which begins Jesus’ public ministry, points proleptically to the marriage supper of the Lamb, which inaugurates the eschatological age (Rev. 19:7–9). The culminating picture of God with his people (Deut. 16:13–16; Matt. 1:23; John 1:14) is a magnificent wedding (Rev. 21:2, 9) between Christ and the new Jerusalem.

Woman

Ancient Near East

The ancient Near East was a male-dominated culture in which, therefore, women were marginalized and treated more or less as property. Note, for example, Boaz’s question “Who does that young woman belong to?” (Ruth 2:5). Women, of course, produce children, and this power was prized. Women were also fit to engage in various mundane tasks, but they were not trained for war or educated for service in the royal court. Their role in society was subordinate and secondary.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the wild and powerful Enkidu met a “wise woman” who seduced him. Thereafter, Enkidu was tamed and weakened. She made a civilized man of him. In the Ugaritic legend of Danil, Danil was unhappy because he had no sons. With the blessing of the gods, he married Hurriya, and had sons and daughters. Thus, sons fulfilled Danil as much as they fulfilled the woman.

But the power to reproduce, which resides in the woman’s womb, also was mysterious and seemed to belong in the same category as other forces of nature, such as the rebirth of life in the spring following sterile winter. Thus, the ancient world was filled with goddesses of great power. These goddesses at times also took on masculine characteristics, such as displaying great prowess in war; this is especially true of Anat of Canaanite mythology.

Throughout Israel’s sojourn in the Promised Land, there was an undercurrent of Canaanite-style goddess worship. In the period of the judges, the Israelites worshiped the goddess Asherah (Judg. 6:25). Led astray by his wives, Solomon also worshiped the goddess (1 Kings 11:1–8). The “fertility cult” included ritual sex in places of worship. This eventually took place in the temple of Yahweh. Much of this seems to have been homosexual sex (2 Kings 23:7).

Creation of Woman

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

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

Throughout the remainder of Genesis, this judgment does not seem to unfold as expected. Instead, men are shown to desire women. Jacob was willing to work seven years to get the beautiful Rachel as his wife, and when he was fooled into marrying her sister, Leah, he was willing to work another seven years for her (Gen. 29:16–30). And women exploit men and their desire in order to get what they want, in effect mastering them. Lot’s daughters contrived to get what they wanted from him (19:30–38), and Tamar manipulated Judah’s desire (38:13–26).

Reproduction

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

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

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

In the Bible, women are described as having a number of different sexual relationships with men. There were wives, who enjoyed the closest relationship and had the greatest privileges. There were concubines, who were not wives but were bound to a single man. The greatest deviation from the norm of creation was the institution of the harem, whereby a king took to himself any number of consorts. The law of Moses restricted this practice (Deut. 17:17).

Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Status of Women

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

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

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

Song of Songs

Song of Songs, while acknowledging the great power of sexuality to move people to act against their own best interests, nevertheless portrays love in a very positive light. The love between a man and a woman is shown in Song of Songs to be not primarily about generating children. Offspring are not at issue in the Bible’s great love song. Rather, relations between man and wife rest on a deeper foundation, that of sexual enjoyment and desire. In the words of Hannah’s husband, Elkanah, “Don’t I mean more to you than ten sons?” (1 Sam. 1:8).

In Gen. 3:16, God pronounces judgment on the woman that her “desire” will be for her husband, but that he will master her. The Hebrew word for “desire” occurs only once outside Genesis, in Song 7:10, where the woman says that her lover’s “desire” is for her. This seems to be a direct reference to Gen. 3:16. Thus, in Song of Songs the judgment on the woman is rolled back and reversed in love. In Song of Songs it is the king who is enthralled in love and thus subdued (7:5). He would not have it any other way!

Thus, sexuality is celebrated in Song of Songs. What proves to be such a grave temptation to men elsewhere is shown to be an essential part of God’s good creation, albeit a potent and dangerous facet of life. Women do not exist simply to produce children; they partner and revel with their lovers, together enjoying that particular part of God’s creation that requires two sexes to explore.

Imagery

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

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

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

Church Government

Throughout most of Christian history, women’s roles in the church have been comparable to their role in the general culture. Women participated little in the institutional life of society, and the church was no different. A number of Bible texts can be used in support of women’s marginalization as leaders. For example, in the OT, the cult was managed by the priestly caste, and no woman was ever a priest of Yahweh. In the NT, the local churches were overseen by a company of elders. Elders are described by Paul as men, the husband of one wife, who were apt to teach and who managed their own families well (1 Tim. 3:1–7). Immediately before this description, Paul notes that women were not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:9–15). Women were the “weaker partner” (1 Pet. 3:7). Thus, women’s subordinate role throughout most of church history has some biblical justification.

However, as women participate more and more in the institutional life of society, the normative value of the aforementioned texts has been questioned, and other texts have been put forward to provide an alternative biblical conception of women’s roles in the church. Perhaps 1 Tim. 2:12 is only against teaching a specific heresy, and the Greek verb translated “to assume authority over” (authenteō) may refer to a specific kind of authoritarian or domineering behavior. As noted above, in Rom. 16 Paul considers women to be leaders in the church. Since it is true that in Christ there is no male or female (Gal. 3:28), how far does this extend? Today’s challenge for churches is to decide these matters in light of the whole of Scripture rather than a few proof texts.

Showing 1 to 50 of627 results

1. Parable of the Tire

Illustration

"I don't know why I should always be plagued with troubles," said Mrs. Lavendar. "Every time I go out somewhere, that rear tire is flat and I have to get it inflated. My son also is a real concern to me. Every time he has a problem, he comes running home."

"The tire probably needs vulcanizing," said Mr. Black. "It has a small leak somewhere that's hard to detect. As for your son, I don't know what you can do about him."

It was true that the tire had disappointed Mrs. Lavendar too many times. It needed to be removed from the car or have major repair. The young son also needed a major change to be cut loose from his mother's apron strings.

His domineering mother had treated him as a god in his childhood and he could do no wrong. After he was married, her hold on him proved a major detriment to his marriage. It was impossible for his wife to please him and he ran home frequently to be pampered and consoled by his mother.

Our children are not equipped to face life when parents are over solicitous. We need to grow in our own faith, develop individual courage, gain justifiable self-confidence and meet the challenges of life with sound judgment. Experience is a good teacher along with helpful guidance. Our momentary defeats may be turned into long-term achievements.

2. Unwise and Wise Living

Illustration

William R. Baker

Jewish rabbis tell a poignant story that drives home the point of Proverbs 18:21. As the story goes (and five versions of this appear in Greek literature), Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel one day asked his servant to go to buy some good food for him in the market. When the servant returned home, he presented the rabbi with a tongue.

The next day, the rabbi told the servant to go to the market to buy some bad food. Again, the servant returned with a tongue.

When the rabbi asked the servant why he returned with a tongue both times, the servant made this astute observation: "Good comes from it and bad comes from it. When the tongue is good, there is nothing better, and when it is bad, there is nothing worse."

3. Nature of Faith

Illustration

Brett Blair

In 1520 Martin Luther explained the nature of faith using marriage as an illustration: "The third incomparable benefit of faith is that it unites the soul with Christ as a bride united with her bridegroom. By this mystery, as the apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage ... it follows that everything they have they hold in common, the good as well as the evil. Accordingly the believing soul can boast of and glory in whatever Christ has as though it were his own."

4. Be Careful How You Live - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Years ago, Harry Emerson Fosdick, then at the height of his influence as minister of the Riverside Church, New York City, was making a tour of Palestine and other countries of the Near and Middle East. He was invited to give an address at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, where the student body comprised citizens of many countries and representatives from sixteen different religions. What could one say that would be relevant or of interest to so mixed and varied a group? This is how Fosdick began: "I do not ask anyone here to change his religion; but I do ask all of you to face up to this question: What is your religion doing to your character?"

This was a call to consider one of the great issues of human belief: religion and life, Christianity and character, word and spirit. Emerson once said, "What you are speaks so loudly I cannot hear a word you say." Jesus' discourse in this whole sixth chapter of the Gospel of John had two foci - spirit and life. "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." By this he meant that those who appropriated his spirit, i.e., fed upon him as the bread of life, would find, thereby, a fulfillment and satisfaction no other means could give.

The traditions of the world of his time, of course, had a different emphasis. The Greeks were in search of a formula for life, a slogan by which to perform, but such could never claim the commitment of the human will. The Jews had their Law, demanding obedience to every detail as the requisite to the good life, but St. Paul discovered that a set of rules could never provide salvation nor solve the deadly problem of sin and moral failure. Jesus, however, came with a new key to true life: accept his spirit, surrender to the claim of his will, allow him to enter the stream of everyday living; and, in this commitment, all we say and do will reflect the influence of his life within us.

What does this do for and with those who resolve to do it? How has it worked in the Christian story? The world saw this effect in the spirit of the early church, the spirit of human conduct, and in the power to realize what the Christian story promises.

1. The New Spirit's Effect on the Early Church.
2. The New Spirit's Effect upon Human Conduct.
3. The Power to Realize the Christian Story's Promises.

5. The Prince's Devotion

Illustration

Michael P. Green

There is an old story of a prince and his family who were captured by an enemy king. When brought before the enemy king, the prisoner was asked, “What will you give me if I release you?” “Half of my wealth,” was the prince’s reply.

“And if I release your children?”

“Everything I possess.”

“And if I release your wife?”

“Your Majesty, for her I would give myself,” said the prince.

The king was so moved by the prince’s devotion to his family that he freed them all. As they returned home, the prince said to his wife, “Wasn’t the king a handsome man!” With a look of deep love for her husband, she said to him, “I didn’t notice. I could keep my eyes only on the one who was willing to give himself for my sake.”

6. Do's and Don'ts

Illustration

A husband and wife didn't really love each other. The man was very demanding, so much so that he prepared a list of rules and regulations for his wife to follow. He insisted that she read them over every day and obey them to the letter. Among other things, his "do's and don'ts" indicated such details as what time she had to get up in the morning, when his breakfast should be served, and how the housework should be done. After several long years, the husband died.

As time passed, the woman fell in love with another man, one who dearly loved her. Soon they were married. This husband did everything he could to make his new wife happy, continually showering her with tokens of his appreciation. One day as he was cleaning house, she found tucked away in a drawer the list of commands her first husband had drawn up for her. As she looked it over, it dawned on her that even though her present husband hadn't given her any kind of list, she was doing everything her first husband's list required anyway. She realized she was so devoted to this man that her deepest desire was to please him out of love, not obligation.

7. More Than Feelings (Weddings)

Illustration

James McCormick

Most people think of love simply as a feeling you have for someone. For them, it’s a good, warm, romantic, sentimental feeling. I’m in favor of good feelings, but there is a problem: feelings are undependable and uncontrollable. You can’t decide how you’re going to feel – you just feel. Consequently, many of the people who think of love in such terms fall out of love as quickly as they fall into it. Their love is undependable. Marriage is too important to be built upon a foundation so shaky.

The Apostle Paul doesn’t think of love in such terms at all. He writes about a tough, durable kind of love, a love that keeps on loving no matter what. That understanding of love is so important to marriage, because only those able to love one another unconditionally will be able to live together happily as husband and wife. That’s why, in just a few moments, I will ask the two of you to pledge your unconditional love for one another.

But first, I want to remind you that love is more than a feeling. I know that what you are feeling for one another at this moment is beautiful. And, all of us here, your family and your friends, consider it to be a special privilege to share in the beauty of this moment with you. But I hope you will understand when I say that there will be times in your marriage when you will not feel about one another exactly as you do just now. There will be times in your marriage when you will not like each other very much - and that’s normal. There is no-one in the whole world you can feel good about all the time!

So, when those times come in your marriage, as they will, I hope you will stop and remember that love is more than feelings. Love that has grown up to maturity is first of all a commitment, a commitment to be together as husband and wife from now on, no matter what. It’s a commitment that is unconditional. Mature love is also a decision – a decision to act lovingly even when you don’t feel loving – maybe especially when you don’t feel loving!

Of course, the source of such love is God. God loves us with a love that never wavers, a love that is unconditional, and then He asks us to pass that love along to one another. I’m quite sure that, of all God’s gifts to us, the greatest gift of all is the gift of love. Amen.

8. Public Pressure

Illustration

Brett Blair

Lloyd J. Ogilve, in his book Life without Limits, tells the story of a pastor who in the space of one week heard the following comments from various people:

A woman said, "I'm under tremendous pressure from my son these days. I can't seem to satisfy him, however hard I work. He really puts me under pressure."

A young man said, "My parents have fantastic goals for me to take over the family business. It's not what I want to do, but their pressure is unbearable."

A college woman said, "I'm being pressured by my boyfriend to live with him before we are married. You know...sort of try it out...to see if we are right for each other."

A husband said, "My wife is never satisfied. Whatever I do, however much I make, it's never enough. Life with her is like living in a pressure cooker with the lid fastened down and the heat on high."

A secretary said, pointing to her phone, "That little black thing is driving me silly. At the other end of the line are people who make impossible demands and think they are the only people alive."

A middle-aged wife said, "My husband thinks my faith is silly. When I feel his resistance to Christ, I wonder if I'm wrong and confused. As a result, I've developed two lives; one with him and one when I'm with my Christian friends."

An elderly woman said, "My sister thinks she has all the answers about the faith and tries to convince me of her point of view. I feel pressured to become her brand of Christian, but I keep thinking if it means being like her, I don't want it at all. When she calls, I just put the phone on my shoulder and let her rant on while I do other things. A half-hour later, she's still on the line blasting away, but I still feel pressure."

A young pastor at a clergy conference said, "I hardly know who I am any more. There are so many points of view in my congregation, I can't please them all. Everyone wants to capture me for his camp and get me to shape the church around his convictions. The pressure makes me want to leave the ministry."

All of these persons have one thing in common. They are being pressured by other people. We all, at one time or another, experience people-pressure. The question is how will it effect our judgment? That is the question Herod faced. After making an oath to a pretty young girl that she could have up to half of his kingdom, she surprised him and asked for the head of the Baptist. Mark 6:26 indicates that the King was thrown into distress, he knew it was wrong, but because of his oath and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. He sent the executioner and on a platter was delivered the head of a holy man.

9. A Life of Despair

Illustration

Brett Blair

Two of his daughters and a son-in-law committed suicide. Three of his children died of malnutrition. Marx felt no obligation to earn a living, but instead lived by begging from Engels. He fathered an illegitimate child by his maidservant. He drank heavily. He was a paid informer of the Austrian police, spying on revolutionaries. Though Marx and his wife were poor, he kept investing in the stock market where he constantly lost. His wife left him twice, but returned. When she died, he didn't attend her funeral. His correspondence with Engels was full of obscenities. His favorite daughter, Eleanor, with her father's approval, married Edward Eveling, a man who advocated blasphemy and worshiped Satan. Daughter Eleanor committed suicide, poisoning herself with cyanide. Karl Marx died in despair.

Laura Marx, Karl's other daughter committed suicide together with her husband on 25 November 1911. The couple decided they had nothing left to give to the movement to which they had devoted their lives. Laura was 66 and her husband Paul Lafargue was 69. In their suicide letter, which Paul wrote, they explained why they committed suicide. It reads:

"Healthy in body and mind, I end my life before pitiless old age which has taken from me my pleasures and joys one after another; and which has been stripping me of my physical and mental powers, can paralyse my energy and break my will, making me a burden to myself and to others. For some years I had promised myself not to live beyond 70; and I fixed the exact year for my departure from life. I prepared the method for the execution of our resolution, it was a hypodermic of cyanide acid. I die with the supreme joy of knowing that at some future time, the cause to which I have been devoted for forty-five years will triumph. Long live Communism! Long Live the international socialism!"

Vladimir Lenin was one of the speakers at the funeral. He would later write the following to his wife: "If one cannot work for the Party any longer, one must be able to look truth in the face and die like the Lafargues."

Is it any wonder things ended this way for the Marx family? When you look at the tenets of Marxism, where else would you end up but in despair? Listen to these 10 basic principles:

Abolition of private property
A heavy progressive income tax.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
State control of banks.
State control of communication and the press.
State owned businesses.
Equal liability of all to work, establishing industrial armies
Equal distribution of the populace over the country.
Combination of education with industrial production.

What is there left to live for? This world would lead to the despair that caused the Marx family to take their lives. They stand in contrast to the Greatest Commandment to love God and love your neighbor and to the admonition of the Beatitudes. Christianity frees and affirms; Marxism controls and demands. It's life or death isn't it? It's God's offer to the Israelites: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live

10. Old Smoothies

Illustration

A couple attended their 60 year high school class reunion. During the evening they were chosen to head a group that would judge the Old Smoothies dance contest. The husband had a hearing problem and his wife had been trying to get him to get a hearing aid. When the contest got down to the last two partners, the wife conferred with the group of judges and then whispered the name of the winners to her husband. He didn't hear, so she told him again and then yelled, "Get the bananas out of your ears!"

The husband immediately seized the microphone and announced the winners: "Mr. and Mrs. Bonnanas!" Their name turned out to be Smith.

If that wasn't bad enough then the wife explained to the Smiths that they had won because they did such a great job of executing all those dips. "Dips? What dips?" said Mr. Smith. "We were just trying to hold each other up."

11. The Healing Power Of Faith

Illustration

Harold H. Lentz

The woman with the issue of blood had faith that by contact with Christ she could be cured. All around us in daily life are examples of people who, by faith, are overcoming life's difficulties.

A telephone linesman was up a pole when the pole, which was held in place only by cables, fell over him and he was dashed to the ground. His insides were badly crushed and as he was rushed to the hospital; there was little hope that he could survive. A pastor learned of the accident when the man's wife called from the hospital. She said that the very best surgeons in the community had operated but found that he was beyond repair and they had given up all hope. She had been informed that her husband would die within the hour. She asked the pastor to hurry to the hospital to baptize her husband before he died. The pastor entered the sickroom to find a patient with the color of death, too weak to speak. Quickly the pastor explained that God loved the patient. In a few words he explained that baptism makes one a child of God whose sins are forgiven through Christ's death on the cross. Then he asked the patient if he wished to be baptized. The man was too weak to do more than slightly shake his head in consent.

As the pastor left he asked the wife to call him when death came. The pastor got no call that day, nor through the following night. So the next morning he called the wife, who told him that her husband was still alive and some of his color had returned. He fell asleep after the pastor's visit, something he had not done since the accident, and he even ate some food for the first time. The man recovered completely and in a few months was once again climbing telephone poles. All medical help had proven of no avail, but evidently the introduction of faith, and the spiritual dimension, had caused the man to rally. It has been well said, that "more things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of."

12. A Wise Husband

Illustration

Some helpful hints for a husband who wants to see his spouse experience God's best were posted in Daddy's Home, by Greg Johnson and Mike Yorkey.

A husband can:

Back off (give her some space).
Be patient (don't rush things).
Love her as you love your own body (that's going to take some work).
Affirm her role in the family (whether she stays home or works outside the home, she's got the most important job in the world).
Pray for her as you've never prayed before (because God hears our prayers).
Lower your expectations (you're not going to see fireworks every night).
Do the little things (without expecting anything in return).
Show her she's the most cherished woman on earth (she'll probably faint the first time you do this).
Above all, persevere (you're in this for the long haul).

A wise husband builds his mate's self-esteem, realizing that the subtle words and actions of a sinful world constantly assault her sense of self-worth. He remains sensitive to her needs and is always ready to offer his support.

Encourage your wife verbally and demonstratively. Words of cheer and praise are high octane fuel that boost your wife's emotional fuel tanks.

13. Strange Arithmetic

Illustration

Donald B. Strobe

Dr. Paul Popenoe, the famous marriage counselor, was talking to a young husband who had been openly critical of his wife. Dr. Popenoe was explaining how two become one in marriage. In a smart reply the husband said, "Yes, but which one?" The counselor said, "A little of each." Then he went on to explain that in marriage you have to develop "we-psychology"...and to think of yourself in terms of a pair rather than as an individual. What happens when two become one in a real marriage? Some think that it reduces your individuality. Too often one party or the other seems to be saying: "Alright - we two shall become one...and I AM the one!" Obviously, such a marriage is headed for trouble. Ideally, when "two become one" it means that each one is doubled, but not duplicated. You still retain your individual identity, but you add to yourself the identity of the other, and the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Mark 10:7)

A wise person once said: "A marriage consists of one master, one mistress, and two slaves; making, in total, one." That may be strange arithmetic, but it is good theology.

14. Two Schools of Thought on Divorce

Illustration

Mickey Anders

There were two schools of thought in Jesus' day concerning divorce, one liberal and one conservative. Rabbi Shammai taught that divorce was only permissible on the grounds of some sexual impropriety. His was the stricter view. Rabbi Hillel, on the other hand, had a more liberal view and taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. If she burned his breakfast, put too much salt on his food, showed disrespect to him, spoke disrespectfully of her husband's parents in his presence, spoke to a man on the street, or even let her hair down in public, he could divorce her. The view of Rabbi Hillel was the view that was popular in Jesus' day. So divorce was common in Palestine, and in this respect the setting was not unlike our own.

Perhaps the most significant difference between their customs and ours lay in the status of the different genders. A man could divorce a woman on a whim, but a woman could not divorce a man for any cause. The Old Testament contains a highly patriarchal position that viewed a woman's sexual immorality more as property damage against her husband (or her father) rather than as a moral issue. A double standard shines throughout the Old Testament, where it was not uncommon for the male rulers to have many wives and hundreds of concubines. If you look carefully at the question of the Pharisees, you will find no concern whatsoever about a woman's rights in marriage or divorce. "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

15. I Am the King’s Servant, But God’s First

Illustration

Michael Manning

If you get a chance, rent the movie A Man for All Seasons. It is based on the life of St. Thomas Moore and is one of the best dramatic movies I have ever seen. It has been a couple of years since I have seen it, but one scene remains vivid in my mind when I think about the importance of persecution as a way of life for followers of Jesus.

More was the Chancellor of England. By profession he was a lawyer. He loved his king. He loved his country and he loved its laws. Then a terrible dilemma developed for him when the king decided to end his allegiance to the Pope in Rome. Moore was conflicted. While he loved his country and his king, he also loved the church. He was faced with two deeply personal loves, and yet he realized he could no longer have both. As he weighed his options, he considered the fact that both the king and the church had its problems. The king he loved could be ruthless and he wasn't faithful in marriage. The church he loved, on the other hand, was full of all kinds of sinful men. What was he to do?

In a powerful scene from A Man for All Seasons that takes place in the sweating walls of the Tower of London, his wife visits her prisoner husband and asks why he won't just sign the statement of allegiance to the king so they could get back to their life of comfort and prestige. With anguish, Moore cries in a gut-wrenching scene that he is not made of the stuff of martyrs. He doesn't know for sure if he is doing the right thing.

In the end, Moore is convicted of treason for his refusal to acknowledge that the king was the supreme head of the Church of England, Moore defended his actions by saying, "I am the king's servant, but God's first." He weighed all decisions relative to his commitment and love for God. Even if it results in his personal loss of freedom.

16. Athanasian Creed

Illustration

Brett Blair

Athanasian Creed: Athanasius, known as Athanasius of Alexandria, was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. His intermittent episcopacy spanned 45 years, of which over 17 encompassed five exiles. He is traditionally thought to be the author of the this Creed named after him. It was created to guard Nicene Christianity from the heresy of Arianism. It is widely accepted as orthodox and some abbreviated versions of it are still in use today. And yes, the intro and outro are actually part of the original text.

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

    That we believe and confess
    that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
    is both God and human, equally.

     He is God from the essence of the Father,
    begotten before time;
    and he is human from the essence of his mother,
    born in time;
    completely God, completely human,
    with a rational soul and human flesh;
    equal to the Father as regards divinity,
    less than the Father as regards humanity.

    Although he is God and human,
    yet Christ is not two, but one.
    He is one, however,
    not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
    but by God's taking humanity to himself.
    He is one,
    certainly not by the blending of his essence,
    but by the unity of his person.
    For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
    so too the one Christ is both God and human.

    He suffered for our salvation;
    he descended to hell;
    he arose from the dead;
    he ascended to heaven;
    he is seated at the Father's right hand;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    At his coming all people will arise bodily
    and give an accounting of their own deeds.
    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

This ecumenical creed (428 A.D.) is probably unknown to most Christians because it is seldom, if ever, used in worship services. It is probably not used because of its length. The Nicene Creed has eighteen printed lines, whereas the Athanasian has 69. It is difficult for congregations to use because of the creed's intricate and complex terms.

Though the creed carries the name of Athanasius, he did not write it. It was the product of the church of his time. The creed was named after him to honor him for his brave and forceful defense of the Trinity. Athanasius (289-373) was a bishop in Alexandria, Egypt.

The creed deals primarily with the Trinity and Jesus as the Son of God. At this time, the heresy of Arius was prominent. He taught that Jesus was not fully human or divine and that the Holy Spirit was not God but only a divine influence. The Athanasian Creed denounced these false teachings and upheld the doctrine of the Trinity. Luther's high regard for this creed was expressed: "I doubt, since the days of the Apostles, anything more important and more glorious has ever been written in the church of the New Testament."

17. Do What You Need to Do

Illustration

King Duncan

Ron Del Bene was searching for answers in his life. Someone told him about a man in Los Angeles who has a reputation for being a very wise spiritual guide. On a business trip to the west coast Ron made an appointment to see this wise man whom he was sure could help him in his spiritual quest.

The day Ron was to meet the wise man he had a hard time concentrating on his business. All he could think about was the upcoming meeting with the one who surely had The Answer. He drove up the coast only to discover when he arrived that the man was not there. The longer he waited the angrier he became. Finally the man arrived. "I don't know which was greater, my anger or my disappointment," Ron remembers. "This short slightly built person didn't look at all like the wise man I had pictured. He didn't even have a beard!"

The wise man asked Ron why he had come to see him. For the next sixty minutes Ron poured out his hopes, fears, anxieties, and dreams. "Now," directed the wise man, "pay attention!" Ron thought perhaps the teacher would place his hands on his head or heart and he would explode in ecstasy. But he didn't. The wise teacher simply rattled off three things Ron should do. Before Ron had a chance to respond or ask any questions the Wise One left the room. Ron felt disappointed and disillusioned. He had traveled all that way and for what?

After Ron returned home his wife, Eleanor, asked him about his meeting with the Wise One. She listened intensely to her husband's every word. "He told me that there are three things I must do," Ron said. "One, pray unceasingly. Two, go home and love my wife and children. Three, do what needs to be done."

Eleanor looked straight at Ron said, "Thank God, someone finally told you that!" What the teacher told Ron was true. "In retrospect," Ron writes, the teacher "was a far wiser man than I appreciated at the time."

When he least expected it, Ron made a great discovery. That discovery brought great joy. Such joy is a continuing possibility for those who open themselves to the kingdom of God.

18. "As If" You Love

Illustration

J. Allan Petersen

Newspaper columnist and minister George Crane tells of a wife who came into his office full of hatred toward her husband. "I do not only want to get rid of him, I want to get even. Before I divorce him, I want to hurt him as much as he has me."

Dr. Crane suggested an ingenious plan "Go home and act as if you really love your husband. Tell him how much he means to you. Praise him for every decent trait. Go out of your way to be as kind, considerate, and generous as possible. Spare no efforts to please him, to enjoy him. Make him believe you love him. After you've convinced him of your undying love and that you cannot live without him, then drop the bomb. Tell him that you're getting a divorce. That will really hurt him."

With revenge in her eyes, she smiled and exclaimed, "Beautiful, beautiful. Will he ever be surprised!" And she did it with enthusiasm. Acting "as if." For two months she showed love, kindness, listening, giving, reinforcing, sharing. When she didn't return, Crane called. "Are you ready now to go through with the divorce?"

"Divorce?" she exclaimed. "Never! I discovered I really do love him." Her actions had changed her feelings. Motion resulted in emotion. The ability to love is established not so much by fervent promise as often repeated deeds.

19. Creeds and Deeds - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Love for God Is a Commitment

Illustration

King Duncan

An old Russian woman lay on a sofa. Multiple sclerosis had twisted her body almost beyond recognition. The simplest tasks had become almost impossible for her. Corrie Ten Boom visited her at night, using the cover of darkness to escape detection by the Lithuanian authorities. Corrie kissed the woman's wrinkled cheek. The old woman could respond only by rolling her eyes and smiling because the atrophied muscles in her neck would no longer allow her to move her head. The only part of her body she could still control was her right hand. With her gnarled knuckles she stroked Corrie's face. Corrie reached up to take her hand, and kissed her index finger for a special reason.

The routine was the same every morning as the old lady's husband propped her into a sitting position on the sofa. A battered old typewriter was placed on a little table in front of her. Every day the old woman would begin to type. She could only use that one index finger to peck out the letters. This woman served God by translating Christian books into Russian. It was slow going sometimes only typing a page or two a day but this was her way of loving God. She typed portions of the Bible as well as some of the books of Billy Graham and other Christian witnesses.

The woman's attitude was extraordinary. She saw her sickness as a prerequisite, not a detriment, for the work she did. Every other Christian in the city was watched by the secret police. But because she had been sick for so long the police took no interest in her, and she could work undetected spreading the good news of Jesus to a people who were starving for good news.

"Not only does she translate these books," her husband told Corrie, "but she prays while she types. Sometimes it takes a long time for her finger to hit the key, or for her to get the paper in the machine, but all the time she is praying for those whose books she is working on."

That's loving God. People make the same mistake with loving God that they make with loving a spouse. They confuse love with a feeling. Feelings are important, of course, but love for God is, first of all, a commitment.

21. Put Everything You Have Into It

Illustration

Donald B. Strobe

Television personality Willard Scott said, "A good marriage is like an incredible retirement fund. You put everything you have into it during your productive life, and over the years it turns from silver to gold to platinum." That's why a long marriage has always seemed to be such a good idea to the Church. Divorce is like putting your money in an investment fund and then cashing it in just before it begins to gain interest. Note Scott's words: "you put everything you have into it."

Not everybody does. For instance: classified ad appeared in the newspapers sometime back: "For sale: One 52-year old husband. Never remembers anniversaries, birthdays, or special days. Seldom holds hands, hugs, kisses, or says, 'I love you.' Rarely is kind and tender. Will sell cheap - two cents. Call 555-0366. Will bargain." Not much of self put into that marriage. No wonder the wife wants to get rid of the husband. Cheap. But marriage is a 60-60 proposition. Each must go more than half-way.

22. Who Moved?

Illustration

Carl B. Rife

Who is lost? It reminds me of a story of a husband and wife who had been married for 15 years and the wife is sitting buckled in on her side of the car and the husband is sitting buckled in on his side of the car. The wife says, "Dear, why don't we sit as close as we used to?" The husband turns and says to her, "Well, honey, who moved?" Why isn't God as close to us as he used to be? The question is, "who moved?" Who is lost?

23. It’s Ok to Be Extravagant – Sermon Opener

Illustration

James W. Moore

A few years ago there was a true story about a man in New York City who was kidnapped. His kidnappers called his wife and asked for $100,000 ransom. She talked them down to $30,000.

The story had a happy ending: the man returned home unharmed, the money was recovered, and the kidnappers were caught and sent to jail. But, don't you wonder what happened when the man got home and found that his wife got him back for a discount? Calvin Trillin was the writer of this story. He imagined out loud what the negotiations must have been like: "$100,000 for that old guy? You have got to be crazy. Just look at him! Look at that gut! You want $100,000 for that? You've got to be kidding. Give me a break here. $30,000 is my top offer."

Mark Trotter concluded his rendition of the story with this thoughtful comment: "I suppose there are some here this morning who can identify with the wife in that story, but for some reason I find myself identifying with the husband. I'd like to think if I were in a similar situation, there would be people who would spare no expense to get me back. They wouldn't haggle over the price. They wouldn't say, 'Well, let me think about it.' I like to think that they would say, 'We'll do anything for you.'"

The point of that story is this: sometimes it's O.K. to be extravagant! Now, that is precisely what this story in the Gospel of Mark is all about. Remember the story with me. Jesus is on His way to the cross. It is just a few days before Passover. The chief priests and scribes are plotting against Him. Judas is about ready to betray Him. The crucifixion is less than a week away and Jesus knows it. Jesus and His disciples stop at Bethany. just a few days before, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead there in Bethany. Now, as they are having dinner, a woman comes to Jesus and does a beautiful but extravagant thing for our Lord. The Gospel of John tells us that the woman was Mary, (the sister of Martha and Lazarus). Mary brings an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment. She breaks open the jar and pours the costly perfumed oil on Jesus' head. She anoints His head with oil.

Why did she do that? Some say it was an act of gratitude in which she was thanking Jesus for raising her brother Lazarus from the dead. Some say it was an act of consecration in which she was baptizing Jesus to encourage Him to go into the HolyCity and do what had to be done. Others say it was a foreshadowing, an act of preparation, in which she was anointing His body for the death which was to come in Jerusalem a few days later. All say it was an act of love and kindness.

But Judas said it was a waste. If you lived strictly by the Judas mind-set, you would have no Spire on the church, no flowers on the altar, no art on the wall, no robes for the choir, no fine organ, no beautiful weddings. Your daughter would come to you and say, "I'm in love and I'm so happy. I want to get married." And you would say, "Well, why don't you just elope? It's much cheaper. It would be wasteful to have a wedding." But the Mary mind-set says, "Sometimes in the name of love and kindness and gratefulness; it's O.K. Indeed, it's beautiful to be extravagant." Let me show you what I mean.

1. First Of All, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Generosity.

2. Second, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Gratitude.

3. Third And Finally, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Graciousness.

24. Counting the Cost in Marriage

Illustration

Donald Dotterer

In order to live life fully and happily, we must be people who are able to count the cost in almost every area of living.

Marriage is one of those institutions which demands a high personal cost. The church's wedding ritual begins with these sobering words, words that are so often taken too lightly. It says, marriage is "not to be entered into unadvisedly, but reverently, discreetly, and in the fear of God." Each person makes a covenant to love, comfort, honor and take care of the other in sickness and in health. That can be a difficult commitment to keep if a spouse becomes critically ill or severely disabled. The husband and wife agree to stay with each other "for better, for worse, for richer for poorer ... till death do us part." A man and woman must count the cost of what they are getting into in marriage.

So it is also with having children. Did you see a recent letter to Ann Landers in the paper? It struck a chord with this expectant father heading toward his 40th birthday. The writer was talking about the mixed blessings of raising children in your 40s and 50s. It is true, I think, that an older father is more patient, and in a way, more appreciative of children.

However, as this letter-writer rightly suggests, raising children at a later age is also more difficult in many ways. Men or women in their 40s and 50s generally have a lower energy level, so taking the kids to Little League, attending PTA meetings and so forth tires parents much more.

Indeed, there are tremendous physical, emotional, and financial costs to raising children. Before having them, a couple should count the cost. There are just too many lonely and neglected and deprived children out there with parents who have not done so.

25. Twas the Beginning of Advent

Illustration

Richard J. Fairchild

Today I want to read to you a poem that is based on a rather famous poem about Christmas called ‘Twas the Beginning of Advent'. It is by a friend of mine - Todd Jenkins. It will tell you a little bit about this season we celebrate.

'Twas the beginning of Advent and all through the Church
Our hope was all dying we'd given up on the search.
It wasn't so much that Christ wasn't invited,
But after 2,000 plus years we were no longer excited.

Oh, we knew what was coming no doubt about that.
And that was the trouble it was all "old hat."
November brought the first of an unending series of pains
With carefully orchestrated advertising campaigns.

There were gadgets and dolls and all sorts of toys.
Enough to seduce even the most devout girls and boys.
Unfortunately, it seemed, no one was completely exempt
From this seasonal virus that did all of us tempt.

The priests and prophets and certainly the kings
Were all so consumed with the desire for "things!"
It was rare, if at all, that you'd hear of the reason
For the origin of this whole holy-day season.

A baby, it seems, once had been born
In the mid-east somewhere on that first holy-day morn.
But what does that mean for folks like us,
Who've lost ourselves in the hoopla and fuss?

Can we re-learn the art of wondering and waiting,
Of hoping and praying, and anticipating?
Can we let go of all the things and the stuff?
Can we open our hands and our hearts long enough?

Can we open our eyes and open our ears?
Can we find him again after all of these years?
Will this year be different from all the rest?
Will we be able to offer him all of our best?

So many questions, unanswered thus far,
As wise men seeking the home of the star.
Where do we begin how do we start
To make for the child a place in our heart?

Perhaps we begin by letting go
Of our limits on hope, and of the stuff that we know.
Let go of the shopping, of the chaos and fuss,
Let go of the searching, let Christmas find us.

We open our hearts, our hands and our eyes,
To see the king coming in our own neighbours' cries.
We look without seeking what we think we've earned,
But rather we're looking for relationships spurned.

With him he brings wholeness and newness of life
For brother and sister, for husband and wife.
The Christ-child comes not by our skill,
But rather he comes by his own Father's will.

We can't make him come with parties and bright trees,
But only by getting down on our knees.
He'll come if we wait amidst our affliction,
Coming in spite of, not by our restriction.

His coming will happen of this there's no doubt.
The question is whether we'll be in or out.
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock."
Do you have the courage to peer through the lock?

A basket on your porch, a child in your reach.
A baby to love, to feed and to teach.
He'll grow in wisdom as God's only Son.
How far will we follow this radical one?

He'll lead us to challenge the way that things are.
He'll lead us to follow a single bright star.
But that will come later if we're still around.
The question for now: Is the child to be found?

Can we block out commercials, the hype and the malls?
Can we find solitude in our holy halls?
Can we keep alert, keep hope, stay awake?
Can we receive the child for ours and God's sake?

From on high with the caroling host as he sees us,
He yearns to read on our lips the prayer: Come Lord Jesus!
As Advent begins all these questions make plea.
The only true answer: We will see, we will see.

26. Blasphemy Against the Spirit

Illustration

Staff

This statement (Matt 12:32, par Mk. 3:29, Luke 12:10) has been the subject of much questioning. Obviously the reference here is not to the naming of the Holy Spirit in a blasphemous utterance, for in Matt. 12:32 even blasphemy against the Son of man can be forgiven. Among the many attempts at exegesis, the most convincing is the suggestion that the man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who has recognized that God is working through the Holy Spirit in the actions of Jesus, and who quite consciously "misrepresent faith in God as faith in the devil. This saying is an extremely serious warning against the demonic and scarcely conceivable potential in man: To declare war on God. This is not done in weakness and doubt, but by one who has been overcome by the Holy Spirit and who knows very well on whom he is declaring war" (E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, 1971, 87; cf. H.W. Beyer, TDNT I:624; O.E. Evans, "The Unforgivable Sin", ExpT 68, 1956-57, 240-44). This is the blasphemer who does it deliberately, after encounter with the God of grace, as the context shows. For Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. "Therefore he who blasphemes the Spirit is no longer speaking against a God who is distant, about whom he entertains mere foolish thoughts, but against the one who makes evident to him his gracious work, and confirms it with his manifest, divine seal. He is a man who ought to give thanks, not to blaspheme" (A. Schlatter, on Matt. 12:32).

W.L. Lane draws attention to Sifre on Deut. 32:38 (end): "The Holy One, blessed be he, pardons everything else, but on profanation of the Name [i.e. blasphemy] he takes vengeance immediately" (The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 145) Lane goes on to comment: "This is the danger to which the scribes exposed themselves when they attributed to the agency of Satan the redemption brought by Jesus. The expulsion of demons was a sign of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God. Yet the scribal accusations against Jesus amount to a denial of the power and greatness of the Spirit of God. By assigning the action of Jesus to a demonic origin the scribes betray a perversion of spirit which, in defiance of the truth, chooses to call light darkness. In this historical context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes the conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God released through Jesus' work and act" (ibid). Thus blasphemy here is much more serious than the taking of the divine name in vain which a believer may have done before coming to repentance and faith.

It may be said to those who have been tormented by fear that they have committed the unforgivable sin that their concern is itself a sign that they have not committed the sin envisaged in Jesus' teaching here. Lane's interpretation also helps to explain the distinction drawn between blasphemy against the Son of man and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The distinction suggests that "while an attack on Jesus' own person, as son of Man and therefore 'hidden', is pardonable, any speaking against the power by which he works (i.e. the divine endowment for his messianic ministry) will not be pardoned" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 318). For such an action would be deliberately to attribute to Satan the action of God himself. (NIDNTT, v. 3, pp. 343-344)

What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Though many suggestions have been offered, I think the answer lies in the context here (Luke 12:7-12) and in the context of redemptive history. Remember that the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, and it is the Spirit who causes men to recognize who Jesus is. Hebrews 6 and 10 contain discussions of unforgivable sins, but the distinction between blasphemy against Christ and the Spirit has disappeared. Jesus seemed to be saying this: Because the Holy spirit has not yet been poured out in fullness, the Jews will be forgiven for blaspheming the Son of Man. They will be given a second chance to repent, as we see in the book of Acts. If, however, they continue to blaspheme after the Spirit has come, they will not be forgiven. But what is the sin, specifically? Since it is blasphemy, we must see it essentially as a verbal sin. In context it is the sin of saying that Jesus Christ is of the devil. Jesus was willing to excuse this blasphemy before Pentecost; but, in the new covenant era it is not longer excusable. If a person curses Jesus, but does not really know who Jesus is, that sin is forgivable. But if the Holy Spirit has borne witness to a person that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that person curses Him, it cannot be forgiven.

27. Whispering the Lyrics

Illustration

Thomas Long

There's an interesting story behind Jimmy Reed records. In placing the phonograph needle again and again in the grooves of Jimmy Reed's records, you began to notice something curious. If one listened very carefully, there could sometimes be heard, ever so faintly in the background, a soft woman's voice murmuring in advance the next verse of the song. The story that grew up around this -- and perhaps it is true -- was that Jimmy Reed was so absorbed in the bluesy beat and the throbbing guitar riffs of his music that he simply could not remember the words of his own songs. He needed help with the lyrics, and the woman's voice was none other than that of his wife, devotedly coaching her husband through the recording session by whispering the upcoming stanzas into his ear as he sang.

Whether or not this story is accurate, Christians will surely recognize a parallel experience. Jesus tells his followers that the role of the Holy Spirit is, in effect, to whisper the lyrics of the gospel song in the ears of the faithful. When Jesus was present, he was the one who instilled in them the right words, coached them through the proper verses, taught them the joyful commandments. But now that Jesus approaches his death, now that he draws near to his time of departure, now that the disciples will be on their own without him, that task is to be handed over to the Holy Spirit:

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth ..." (John 14:15-17).

The primary task, then, of the Holy Spirit is reminding the faithful of the truth, jogging the memories of the followers of Jesus about all of his commandments so that they can keep them in love, whispering the lyrics of the never-ending hymn of faithful obedience in their ears.

28. Bear the Burden

Illustration

David Augsburger

Forgiveness is hard. Especially in a marriage tense with past troubles, tormented by fears of rejection and humiliation, and torn by suspicion and distrust. Forgiveness hurts. Especially when it must be extended to a husband or wife who doesn't deserve it, who hasn't earned it, who may misuse it. It hurts to forgive. Forgiveness costs. Especially in marriage when it means accepting instead of demanding repayment for the wrong done; where it means releasing the other instead of exacting revenge; where it means reaching out in love instead of relinquishing resentments. It costs to forgive...Stated psychologically, forgiveness takes place when the person who was offended and justly angered by the offender bears his own anger, and lets the other go free. Anger cannot be ignored, denied, or forgotten without doing treachery in hidden ways. It must be dealt with responsibly, honestly, in a decisive act of the will. Either the injured and justifiably angry person vents his feelings on the other in retaliation (That is an attempt at achieving justice as accuser, judge, and hangman all in one) or the injured person may choose to accept his angry feelings, bear the burden of them personally, find release through confession and prayer and set the other person free. This is forgiveness.

29. Faith and Expectation

Illustration

Larry Powell

Acts 1:4-14 contains certain encouragements to the followers of Christ to be an "expectant" fellowship. With this in mind, let us consider some specific instances where expectancy is implied.

1. Acts 1:5: "For John baptized with water but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." What is the difference between John’s water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

a. John’s baptism. Water baptism was commonly practiced by the Jews long before the appearance of John. It symbolized religious purification, and in a more specialized use it was applied when new converts entered into Judaism (proselyte baptism). John, however, baptized both Jews and Gentiles as a rote of moral purification for the approaching Kingdom of God. Although John’s baptism would enable those who submitted to it to meet the "Day of the Lord," it was to be distinguished as different from a future baptism, administered by one who "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

b. Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism consists not in symbolic gestures of initiation, but in the receiving of "power." It does not ordain anybody for, or against, the future but rather manifests itself in a spiritual experience in the present. An initiatory baptism is symbolically accomplished once, whereas the baptism of the Holy Spirit may occur quite unrehearsed many times over. The element of expectation is contained in the selected scripture by the phrase, "But before many days, you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

2. Acts 1:7-8: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father had fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." The disciples have just asked Jesus a legitimate question regarding the nature of his mission. A simple "yes" or "no" answer would not have been sufficient inasmuch as if he replied, "Yes (I have come to restore the Kingdom of Israel)," it would have been a lie, and if he had replied "No," they would have become disillusioned with him in the beginning. Instead, he informs them that it is not for them to know all the mysteries of God - but there is a consolation: "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Perhaps it is like saying to someone, "You cannot adequately define love, but nonetheless you can experience it." Here, the power of the Holy Spirit is promised, and they are encouraged to expect it in their own experience.

3. Acts 1:11: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven?" I suppose the most logical answer would have been, "Because we are bewildered!" It would have been extremely difficult to have acted otherwise while witnessing their Lord being lifted up into heaven on a cloud. If that were not enough, two men in white robes suddenly appeared to stand by them and question their amazement. In all probability, at least one of the inferences here is that rather than gazing into heaven, it would be more proper to get on with the business of the Kingdom, teaching and preaching, and doing "whatsoever I have commanded you." However, they should pursue their tasks of soul-winning with an attitude of expectancy because "this Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way."

4. Acts 1:14. "All those with one accord devoted themselves to prayer." And we may be sure that their prayers contained expectancy. Expectancy for what? For the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the return of the risen Lord.

30. One Last Chance

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

A man never opened the car door for his wife or any other woman. He felt it was a sissy Emily Post kind of thing to do and "Besides," he was fond of saying, "she doesn't have two broken arms." His table manners left much to be desired, and manners in general were looked upon by him as quite unnecessary.

After many years of marriage, the wife died and her husband was heartbroken because he truly loved her. Somehow, as the pallbearers brought her casket out of the funeral service, the husband and his family reached the hearse ahead of them. The mortician was back a few feet and, since he knew the husband quite well, he called him by name and said, "Open the door for her, will you?" The man reached for the door handle and then, for one second, just froze. He realized he had never opened a car door for her in life; now in her death it would be the first, last, and only time. It was a moment for him when years of regrets came crashing down around him.

31. GOD MADE ME, AND GOD DOESN’T MAKE ANY JUNK

Illustration

John H. Krahn

There are times in every person’s life when they suffer from feelings of inadequacy. Sometimes we even move from inadequacy to feelings of worthlessness. We feel we are not attractive enough or intelligent enough or as lucky as others. Success, as we dreamed of attaining it, has not happened to us. As we get older, childhood dreams of being someone important begin to vanish. Entering our middle forties, we begin to realize that our current position in life will not increase substantially.

The trappings of success are also elusive. We work so hard to have the good things in life and often find ourselves with little time or energy to enjoy them. There is no way to extend the 168 hours which comprise each week. The husband works fifty or more hours a week, and the wife works so the kids can go to college. In the process of trying to enhance the collective life of the family, less and less time is left to spend together sharing one another’s love and happiness. There is little wonder that we so often feel uptight and junky.

But God’s good word is that he made us, and he doesn’t make junk. In the Bible we read that we were created in the image of God. We were molded in the image of our Maker. Like God we can reason, we have a mind, a memory and a will. God even put us in charge of everything he created. God was pleased with his workmanship of man and said, "It is good." He made nothing more special or more beautiful than us. Made in the image of God, we even have the ability to control much of our destiny.

We should not think of ourselves as less than God thought of us. Look at your hands. They’re hands very much like the hands of Jesus. And Jesus was no junk. There should no more be a junky John or junky Mary or junky Kathy than a junky Jesus. Jesus was a man, and like us in every way with the exception of sin. And that is the difference. For you see, sin is the chief purveyor of junk in our lives. It was Adam and Eve’s sin of trying to be as God that tarnished the fullness of their image of God. It made them less than what God wanted for them. Sin brought with it pain and death. It pushed them away from God.

Yes, God made each of us, and he doesn’t make junk. We produce the junk in our lives when we let temptation get the best of us, when we try to attain unattainable goals and then labor under feelings of failure, when we get our priorities all mixed up, and when we walk life’s way apart from God.

Let’s not live one more day of our precious lives in a manner less than God desires. We confess our sins before the Almighty. We welcome Jesus’ entrance into our lives with all the power of the Holy Spirit. We pray, "Lord, lead me onto beautiful paths of meaningful life." And we boldly proclaim to ourselves and before the world, "God made me, and God doesn’t make any junk."

32. Getting Even

Illustration

After 17 years of marriage, a man dumped his wife for a younger woman.

The downtown luxury apartment was in his name and he wanted to remain there with his new love so he asked the wife to move out and then he would buy her another place.

The wife agreed to this, but asked that she be given 3 days on her own there, to pack up her things. While he was gone, the first day she lovingly put her personal belongings into boxes and crates and suitcases.

On the second day, she had the movers come and collect her things.

On the third day, she sat down for the last time at their candlelit dining table, soft music playing in the background, and feasted on a pound of shrimp and a bottle of Chardonnay.

When she had finished, she went into each room and deposited a few of the resulting shrimp shells into the hollow of the curtain rods. She then cleaned up the kitchen and left.

The husband came back, with his new girl, and all was bliss for the first few days. Then it started; slowly but surely. Clueless, the man could not explain why the place smelled so bad. They tried everything; cleaned & mopped and aired the place out. Vents were checked for dead rodents, carpets were steam cleaned, air fresheners were hung everywhere. Exterminators were brought in, the carpets were replaced, and on it went.

Finally, they could take it no more and decided to move.

The moving company arrived and did a very professional packing job, taking everything to their new home...including the curtain rods.

33. The Fault Box

Illustration

Source Unknown

A couple married for 15 years began having more than usual disagreements. They wanted to make their marriage work and agreed on an idea the wife had. For one month they planned to drop a slip in a "Fault" box. The boxes would provide a place to let the other know about daily irritations. The wife was diligent in her efforts and approach: "leaving the jelly top off the jar," "wet towels on the shower floor," "dirty socks not in hamper," on and on until the end of the month. After dinner, at the end of the month, they exchanged boxes. The husband reflected on what he had done wrong. Then the wife opened her box and began reading. They were all the same, the message on each slip was, "I love you!"

34. CHEEK-TURNING POWER

Illustration

John H. Krahn

How many of us are in the process of developing ulcers? How many of us are carrying resentments? How much damage is being done internally because we will not forgive someone who hurt us deeply? How much of our daily life is being colored grey by an angry mind quarreling in fantasy bouts with an adversary, an ex-husband, an ex-wife, a relative, a neighbor, a fellow worker, or even a fellow parishioner? Who are suffering from high blood pressure or even heart problems because they have not forgiven completely?

In the face of all of this, we consider the love chapter in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, for some very good advice. Saint Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes, "Love is not irritable or resentful ..."

Snow is hardly news in many parts of our nation. After a blizzard, it takes a snowplow to tackle the snowdrifts and help us become mobile again. Resentments are like snowdrifts, and forgiveness is the snowplow. In the Christian life forgiveness is a snowplow that opens roads again, removing barriers so that we can communicate and listen to those with whom we had been at odds.

When a person offends us, we feel like punching him out. Many a child has done just that on the way home from school at a predetermined spot. Those of us who are mature are more sophisticated but no less harmful as we unleash a lethal tongue, or verbally stab people behind their backs. God reminds us in the epistle that love is not resentful.

Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us some pretty tough advice while he was alive. On the subject we are considering, he says, "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Jesus states that the mere fact that we have been wronged does not give us the license to do wrong. Followers of Jesus are not to retaliate but must even be willing to suffer the same injury again. Cheek-turning power is no easy matter. It is perhaps as powerful a weapon as there is toward maintaining and even improving most human relationships. When I have been wise enough to use it, I can tell you firsthand that it works.

Love is the language of forgiveness. Love does not resent, it forgives. Cheek-turning love is Christian love in action. On our own, we seldom have the power to turn the other cheek. Such power is only possible when Jesus Christ lives within us. It comes when we practice the presence of God, inviting Jesus’ indwelling through prayer. Then as we partake of his body and blood, we not only receive forgiveness for ourselves, but we also receive the powerful presence of Jesus Christ: a presence that can cause a cheek to turn and a life of loving forgiveness to plow through snowdrifts of resentment.

35. A Great Prophet Has Arisen Among Us

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

"Shunem: Site of the Prophet Elisha's Resurrection Miracle." If they had had road signs in the days of old this might have been the sign that welcomed you to Shunem. All the people of Shunem and all the people in the cities around Shunem surely knew of Elisha's miraculous feat. This was an area known for its prophets!

Elisha's prophetic forerunner, Elijah, was the first prophet to raise a young man to life. It happened in Zarephath (1 Kings 17:8-24). Perhaps it is not surprising that Elisha also raised a young man to life. We are told, after all, that Elisha inherited a double share of Elijah's spirit!

In a story told in 2 Kings 4 we hear that Elijah came to Shunem one day and had a bite to eat at the home of a wealthy woman. Since there were no fast food restaurants in Elisha's day, he stopped quite often at the house of the Shunammite woman to get something to eat. The woman sensed that Elisha was a holy one of God. So she persuaded her husband to fix up a permanent guest room for Elisha. She invited Elisha to stop and stay with them whenever he passed through Shunem. And he did. Free room and board is a pretty good deal, after all!

Now Elisha was an honorable man. He thought he should really give this woman some kind of gift. He told his servant Gehazi to ask the Shunammite woman what gift he might give to her. Gehazi went. He discovered that the woman was quite content with what she had. She asked for nothing. "But there must be something we can give this woman," Elisha insisted to Gehazi. Then Gehazi had a wonderful idea. "This woman has no child and her husband is old," he said to Elisha. Elisha got the point. He announced to the woman of Shunem that, "At this season, when the time comes round, you shall embrace a son" (2 Kings 4:16). And it came to pass just as Elisha had promised. One day years later, the son of the woman of Shunem went out among the reapers to be with his father. Suddenly he began to complain bitterly. "Oh, my head, my head!" he shrieked.

"Carry the lad to his mother," the father ordered. The reapers did so. The boy lay on his mother's lap until noon, and then he died. The Shunammite woman carried her son straightway to Elisha's guest room and laid him on Elisha's very own bed. She then set out to Mt. Carmel determined to find Elisha. When she found the prophet she fell before him and took hold of his feet. "Did I ask my Lord for a son?" she pleaded. "Did I not say, 'Do not mislead me'?" (2 Kings 4:28).

Elisha got the point. He returned to Shunem, went to his room where the dead boy lay, shut the door and began to pray. Elisha then stretched himself upon the boy and breathed his breath into him. Soon the child sneezed seven times and then opened his eyes. "Take your son," Elisha said to the woman of Shunem.

"Shunem: Site of the Prophet Elisha's Resurrection Miracle." Thus a sign at the city gate might have read. The city of Nain was just a stone's throw down the road from Shunem. The citizens of Nain undoubtedly basked in Shunem's glory. They, too, believed themselves to live in a land where prophets do miracles."

36. Parable of the Rich Man's Wife

Illustration

Staff

Two couples stood at the altar in a double wedding ceremony. Capable, hopeful, ambitious young people they entered the ways of wedded bliss with faith and confidence.

As time wrote its story the one young man was exceedingly successful in business and year by year his income grew larger.

The other young man was successful, but his work of service never made him rich in income.

Strangely as the wealthy business man grew richer, his wife became less and less capable; so that her duties as wife, mother and homemaker became more of a burden and the care of her home and children was taken on by servants. Boredom and drink consumed her days until she became a weak and unbalanced person.

The second wife knew she was needed and carried a full load of responsibility in working with her husband to raise family, carry the cost of living and render community service.

The experiences of success and failure cemented their marriage in a commoness of understanding, which made them confident personalities and happy individuals.

By worldly gain and eminent business success the first couple wrote its social achievements with a mansion and automobiles. The second couple wrote its story in service and activity.

Wealth may impower us to do good or evil to ourselves and to others. When we measure the program and progress of our lives, we may enrich or impoverish our souls. We cannot neglect the feeding of the mind and soul with heavenly riches without severely penalizing our lives.

In the ease of the double wedding, which husband was rich?

37. Building a Bridge

Illustration

Staff

They say a wife and husband, bit by bit,
Can rear between themselves a mighty wall,
So thick they cannot speak with ease through it,
Nor can they see across it, it stands so tall.

Its nearness frightens them, but each alone
Is powerless to tear its bulk away; and each
Dejected wishes he had known
For such a wall, some magic thing to say.

So let us build with master art, my dear,
A bridge of love between your life and mine,
A bridge of tenderness, and very near,
A bridge of understanding, strong and fine,
Till we have formed so many lovely ties,
There never will be room for walls to rise.

38. Behavior Change

Illustration

Tony Campolo

A pastor counseled a man who was falling out of love with his wife. He advised the man to think of all the ways he could make life happier for his wife and then do them. A few days later my friend received a phone call in which the husband related the following:

"Every day I leave for work, put in a hard day, come home dirty and sweaty, stumble in the back door, go to the refrigerator, get something to drink, and then go into the rec room and watch television until supper time. After talking to you, I decided I would do better than that in the future. So yesterday, before I left work, I showered and shaved and put on a clean shirt. On the way home I stopped at the florist and bought a bouquet of roses.

Instead of going in the back door as I usually do, I went to the front door and rang the doorbell. My wife opened the door, took one look at me, and started to cry. When I asked her what was wrong she said, 'It's been a horrible day. First Billy broke his leg and had to have it put in a cast. I no sooner returned home from the hospital when your mother called and told me that she is coming to stay for three weeks. I tried to do the wash and the washing machine broke and there is water all over the basement. And now you have to come home drunk!"'

39. Who Moved?

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

You may have seen that cartoon that pictured an older couple driving down the road on Sunday afternoon. She is leaning against the door on her side of the car and he is driving. They're eager to get where they're going, but they're slowed down dramatically by a young couple who are cuddling in the car ahead of them and in no hurry at all. Finding it impossible to pass, the older couple finally began to strike up conversation. The older woman looks across at her husband, then looks ahead at the young couple cuddling and asks her husband, "Why don't we sit together like that anymore?" Quick as a flash, he responds, "I haven't moved."

A relationship between persons and between us and god can grow cold over the years. That's not God's fault. God doesn't move away from us, but we can move away from god. Likewise there may be a loved one - a husband, a wife, a child, or parent, with whom your relationship has grown cold. You may be to blame. You may be the one who moved. You can do something about it.

40. We Don't Like Pop

Illustration

Michael P. Green

A wife came to the conclusion that carbonated drinks were having negative physical effects on her family and herself and so decided that they should give them up. But how would she convince her three-year-old daughter, who liked them so much, that it was necessary to stop drinking them?

As the wife was telling her husband of her decision, the little girl, who had heard the conversation, piped up to ask, “Mommy, we don’t like pop any more?” Mommy said “That’s right!”—and that was all it took.

Oh, for such a readiness to give up something when we learn that God does not want us to do it.

41. The Honorable Prince

Illustration

Unknown

It is said that Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, once had captured a prince and his family. When they came before him, the monarch asked the prisoner, "What will you give me if I release you?"

"The half of my wealth," was his reply.

"And if I release your children?"

"Everything I possess."

"And if I release your wife?"

"Your Majesty, I will give myself."

Cyrus was so moved by his devotion that he freed them all. As they returned home, the prince said to his wife, "Wasn't Cyrus a handsome man!"

With a look of deep love for her husband, she said to him, "I didn't notice. I could only keep my eyes on you--the one who was willing to give himself for me."

42. Mother Spells Bankrupt

Illustration

Staff

The love behind a gift is more important than the gift itself. The person who has learned this will not be frustrated because his gift is small, like the husband who wrote the following lament to his wife on Mother's Day:

M is for the mink coat you want, dear,
O is for the opal ring you crave,
T is for the tiny car you'd love, sweet,
H is for the hat that makes you rave,
E is for the earrings you'd admire, love,
R is for the rug on which you'd tread;

Put them all together, they spell bankrupt,

So I'm giving you this handkerchief instead.

43. A Servant in Saigon

Illustration

Keith Wagner

To be servants requires courage, sacrifice and lots of love. Jack Canfield and Mark Hansen tell the story of Betty Tisdale. (Chicken Soup for the Soul) She was the wife of a Naval Doctor in Vietnam. She had compassion on the hundreds of orphans in Saigon. She made 14 trips to Saigon by using her life savings. With great determination she managed to airlift orphans from Vietnam during the time it was falling into the hands of the North Vietnamese. It was not a simple task. First, she needed birth certificates. She went to the hospital and created them herself. She managed to make 219 eligible certificates that satisfied the government. Next she had to find a place for the children to stay when they arrived at Ft. Benning, Georgia here in the states. Again she met resistance and the Secretary of the Army wouldn't answer her calls. Determined to carry out her mission, Betty called his mother and pleaded her case. Virtually overnight, her son, the Secretary of the Army, responded.

Now she was challenged as to how to get the children safely out of Vietnam. She was unable to charter a plane. She went to Ambassador Graham Martin and pleaded for some form of transportation. He agreed to help as long as the Vietnamese government cleared their release. Two Air Force transport planes flew the children to the Philippines. Because her husband was dedicated to helping his wife he used $21,000 of his own money to charter a United Airlines plane to take the children to the states. Within a month all 219 children were adopted and placed in homes in the US.

When Jesus advocates a life of self denial, he is not talking about being a martyr, nor is he wanting us all to be Mother Teresa or a Betty Tisdale. He is talking about denying ourselves the demand for power, honor and status and being servants.

Faith is a paradox. Life in the kingdom is not acquired with honors, prizes, achievements, awards and success. It is realized with sacrificial love, unwavering faith and belief that God has a seat reserved just for us. It's better than the 50 yard line. It is not just good for a single game or a single season. It is good for eternity.

44. Under Arrest

Illustration

In one of his sermons, A.C. Dixon told of an incident that took place in Brooklyn, N.Y. A detective who had been looking for a local citizen finally tracked him down in a drugstore. As the man began to make his purchase, the officer laid his hand on the citizen's shoulder and said, "You're under arrest; come with me!"

Stunned, the man demanded, "What did I do?"

The detective calmly replied, "You know what you did. You escaped from the Albany penitentiary several years ago. You went west, got married, and then came back here to live. We've been watching for you since you returned."

Quietly the man admitted, "That's true, but I was sure you'd never find me. Before you take me in, could we stop by my house so I can talk to my family?"

The officer agreed. When they got to his home, the man looked at his wife and asked, "Haven't I been a kind husband and a good father? Haven't I worked hard to make a living?"

His wife answered, "Of course you have, but why are you asking me these questions?" Her husband then proceeded to explain what had happened and that he was now under arrest. He apparently had hoped that his record as an exemplary husband and father would impress the officer. Even so, he was still an escaped criminal. Though he was "right" with his family, he was all wrong with the state of New York.

45. Be the Change

Illustration

Steve Chandler

“You must be the change you wish to see in others,” said Gandhi. In my own seminars, I probably use that one quotation more than any other. I am always asked, “How can I change my husband?” Or, “How can I change my wife?” Or, “How can I change my teenager?”

By being what you want them to be, you lead by inspiration.

46. Communication In Marriage

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

A happy couple had always raised cucumbers and made sweet pickles together. The husband just loved to watch things grow. Thus he spent his winters studying the seed catalogues to get the best possible cucumbers. The whole family enjoyed preparing the soil, planting and caring for the plants. He would often go out and just enjoy the way they grew. His wife loved to make sweet pickles. She studied the best recipes and the best methods of preparing and preserving them. They were such a happy family, and all their visitors went home with a jar of their famous pickles. The church always had a good supply of their pickles as well. People marveled at this family that had found a project to do together.

Finally, the man died. The next spring all the children returned home.

They said to their mother, "We know how much you love making pickles, so we are going to prepare the garden and plant them for you." The mother smiled and said, "Thanks a lot children, but you don't have to do any planting for I really don't enjoy pickle making. I only did that because your father loved to grow the cucumbers so much." The children were all amazed, but the youngest son was upset, because the father had pulled him aside not too long before and shared with him that he really didn't like growing cucumbers, but only did it to please the mother!

Is this a happy or a sad story? I'm not sure. In many ways it is happy.

They were happy doing for each other. People enjoyed being with them. But why is it also sad? Primarily, because they were not able to share their changing needs and joys with each other. Instead of growing, they stagnated in the performance of what they thought were their duties to each other.

47. The Laughter Of Faith

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

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

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

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

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

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

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

48. Something by Tolstoy

Illustration

Staff

It's very human to begin looking for something and then forget what you're looking for. Tennessee Williams tells a story of someone who forgot. It's the story of Jacob Brodzky, a shy Russian Jew whose father owned a bookstore. The older Brodzky wanted his son to go to college. The boy, on the other hand, desired nothing but to marry Lila, his childhood sweetheart a French girl as effusive, vital, and ambitious as he was contemplative and retiring. A couple of months after young Brodzky went to college, his father fell ill and died. The son returned home, buried his father, and married his love. Then the couple moved into the apartment above the bookstore, and Brodzky took over its management. The life of books fit him perfectly, but it cramped her. She wanted more adventure and she found it, she thought, when she met an agent who praised her beautiful singing voice and enticed her to tour Europe with a vaudeville company. Brodzky was devastated. At their parting, he reached into his pocket and handed her the key to the front door of the bookstore.

"You had better keep this," he told her, "because you will want it someday. Your love is not so much less than mine that you can get away from it. You will come back sometime, and I will be waiting."

She kissed him and left. To escape the pain he felt, Brodzky withdrew deep into his bookstore and took to reading as someone else might have taken to drink. He spoke little, did little, and could most times be found at the large desk near the rear of the shop, immersed in his books while he waited for his love to return.

Nearly 15 years after they parted, at Christmastime, she did return. But when Brodzky rose from the reading desk that had been his place of escape for all that time, he did not take the love of his life for more than an ordinary customer. "Do you want a book?" he asked. That he didn't recognize her startled her. But she gained possession of herself and replied, "I want a book, but I've forgotten the name of it."

Then she told him a story of childhood sweethearts. A story of a newly married couple who lived in an apartment above a bookstore. A story of a young, ambitious wife who left to seek a career, who enjoyed great success but could never relinquish the key her husband gave her when they parted. She told him the story she thought would bring him to himself. But his face showed no recognition. Gradually she realized that he had lost touch with his heart's desire, that he no longer knew the purpose of his waiting and grieving, that now all he remembered was the waiting and grieving itself. "You remember it; you must remember it the story of Lila and Jacob?"

After a long, bewildered pause, he said, "There is something familiar about the story, I think I have read it somewhere. It comes to me that it is something by Tolstoy." Dropping the key, she fled the shop. And Brodzky returned to his desk, to his reading, unaware that the love he waited for had come and gone.

This Tennessee Williams's 1931 story "Something by Tolstoy" reminds me how easy it is to miss love when it comes. Either something so distracts us or we have so completely lost who we are and what we care about that we cannot recognize our heart's desire.

49. Miss Donna

Illustration

James W. Moore

Her name is Donna. Donna is a member of our church. She is a mentor in our Kids Hope USA program. Every week she goes to a nearby elementary school to be a friend, encourager, and mentor to a little boy named John. John looks to be 6 or 7 years old. Donna and John have bonded in a beautiful way. Though there is quite a difference in their ages, Miss Donna – as John calls her – has become John's best friend. Once each week, she visits him at school, helps him with his school work… and then "going the second mile" every Saturday, Donna takes John to do exciting things that without Donna, John would likely never get to do – things like the zoo, the museum, the Galleria.

A few months ago, Donna's husband died in his sleep. Little John came to the funeral to support his friend Miss Donna in her grief. At the reception in the Hines Baker Room after the memorial service, John stood beside Donna and held her hand. She had been there for him and now he was there for her. He would not leave her side. It was a beautiful moment and people in the room had tears in their eyes, so touched by John's intense commitment to lovingly stand by Miss Donna, his friend and mentor.

Some of us saw John eyeing the goodies on the reception table – punch and chocolate chip cookies in abundance… and some of us said to him, "John, would you like to walk over here and have some refreshments?" But no, he would not leave Donna's side. "I want to stay here with Miss Donna.," he would say. The love between the two of them was so radiant and powerful in that room.

Also in the room that day was a man from Chicago. He had flown all the way from Chicago to Houston to be with Donna. Do you know why? Because 38 years ago when he was in first grade, Donna had been his mentor at an elementary school in the Chicago area. He flies from Chicago to Houston every summer to see Donna and to thank her for what she did for him 38 years ago – and then he made this special trip to be with Donna when her husband suddenly died. That man from Chicago says to Donna every time he comes, "I am what I am today because of the love and support you gave me 38 years ago." He says, "Ms. Donna, you were the first person in my life who believed in me." And today little John says to her in words and actions: "Miss Donna, I love you. I know you love me. You are my best friend." Now, where did Donna learn to love like that, to reach out to people in need like that, to make a difference in people's lives like that? You know, don't you? The same place the disciple Andrew learned it – from Jesus.

50. Reconciliation and Communication

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

A husband and wife were having some problems at home. They had argued and now they were giving each other the silent treatment. It lasted all weekend long, it was miserable. On Monday, the husband had an important appointment and had to be at the airport on time to catch a flight. However, he didn't want to be the first to break the silence. He was just too stubborn to do that. But he needed his wife's help. So, he finally wrote on a piece of paper, "Please wake me up at 5.00 a.m." The next morning the man woke up, looked at the clock and discovered it was 9.00 a.m. He completely missed his flight. He was furious. And he was about the hunt his wife down and read her the riot act for not waking him up. But then he noticed a piece of paper on the bed. There, in his wife's handwriting was written: "It is 5.00 A.M., wake up!"

What can you say? This couple had some serious problems, didn't they? They needed help. But what they needed most was reconciliation. And that is exactly what we all need.

Showing 1 to 50 of 627 results