An Aramaic term for “father,” used three times in the NT, always coupled with its Greek equivalent, patēr. A term of endearment used to refer to God, it demonstrates that the speaker has an intimate, loving relationship with God. Jesus so addresses God the Father in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). The believer, filled with the Spirit, becomes God’s adopted child and thus can also so speak to God (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The OT provides a background for this in its teaching that God is the father of his people (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 32:6) and, in a special way, of the king (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7).

This is a metaphor that illuminates the new relational status that Christ’s redemption brings about between the believer and God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were cast out of the garden and banished from God’s presence. The privileged access that they once enjoyed was lost. As the result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, all human beings are born into the world in a state of alienation from God. This condition of disfavor with God is the root from which stem all other human problems in life.

Adam and Eve’s decision to cover themselves with garments made of fig leaves was their “shortcut” attempt to cover their guilt and shame before God (Gen. 3:7). It is this same impulse that accounts for the many diverse religions in existence today. The assumption that distinguishes all false religions is that the condition of human spiritual alienation can be overcome by the performance of certain prescribed rituals or good works. God’s act of making garments of skin to clothe Adam and Eve with (3:21) anticipated the “covering” that he would provide for sin and shame through his own Son’s atoning death and resurrection. What distinguishes Christianity from other religions is its insistence that only God can initiate reconciliation with those who have broken his law. He alone can provide the necessary means that make it possible for him to forgive and accept them back into fellowship with him.

How is forgiveness related to acceptance? Forgiveness addresses one’s need for the removal of guilt. Acceptance addresses one’s need for a resolution to the problem of shame, the inward sense of unworthiness and inadequacy that one feels before God and others. When the high priest Joshua stood before the angel of the Lord with Satan standing there to accuse him because of his filthy garments, the Lord rebuked Satan; then “the angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Take off his filthy clothes.’ Then he said to Joshua, ‘See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.’ Then I said, ‘Put a clean turban on his head.’ So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the Lord stood by” (Zech. 3:4–5). This anticipates the new identity and status that Jesus would give to all who receive him. When the prodigal who had shamed his father returned, the father, instead of reproaching him, commanded his attendants to put a new robe on him, a ring on his finger, and sandals on his feet. “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (Luke 15:24).

The NT uses very intimate metaphors to describe the new relationship with God that one enters upon believing. Adoption gives the believer a new legal status as a child of God. This is objective, but it is also experiential (Rom. 8:15–16). Hebrews tells us that Jesus is not ashamed to call us brothers and sisters (Heb. 2:11).

The voluntary process of granting the rights, privileges, responsibilities, and status of child or heir to an individual or group that was not originally born to the adopter. While birth occurs naturally, adoption occurs only through the exertion of will.

At least two significant figures in the OT were adopted. After Moses’ birth mother kept him alive despite Pharaoh’s command to drown every newborn Hebrew boy in the Nile (Exod. 1:22), Moses was, ironically, adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter (2:10). Esther, or Hadassah, was adopted by her uncle (or cousin) Mordecai upon the death of her parents (Esther 2:7)—this adoption plays an important part in Esther’s ability to prevent the Jewish extermination intended by Haman.

Although adoption is fairly uncommon in the OT, God’s adoption of Israel is of the utmost importance. It demonstrates God’s willingness to initiate relationship with humankind, a truth that later culminated in Jesus Christ. God chooses to adopt the nation of Israel as his child (Deut. 7:6; Isa. 1:2; Hos. 11:1) and more significantly as his firstborn son (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). Thus God singles out Israel among the nations of the earth, bestowing the highest possible honor.

The concept of adoption is more prevalent in the NT, primarily in the apostle Paul’s writings. Based on the belief that Israel’s exclusive position as the adopted firstborn son of God the Father is no longer deserved, the NT includes those who believe in Jesus Christ as adopted children of God’s eternal family (John 1:12; 11:52; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1). The adopted children of God enjoy all the rights of a natural-born child, including the opportunity to call God “Father,” as Jesus did (e.g., Matt. 5:16; Luke 12:32). Paul in particular uses adoption to describe the Christian’s new relationship with God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:15–16, 21–23; 9:25–26).

The KJV translation of certain Greek constructions referring to “flesh.” Most contemporary English versions prefer “of the flesh,” “earthly,” “worldly,” and even “sinful.” Occasionally “carnal” simply refers to physical or material things (e.g., Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11) or to certain aspects of the OT that have been fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 7:16; 9:10). The notion occurs most frequently in the writings of Paul, who makes special use of “carnal” to contrast it with “spiritual.” In Rom. 8:1–11 Paul presents the carnal or worldly person as “Spirit-less” and therefore “Christ-less.” By definition, a Christian is spiritual and cannot be carnal (“live according to the sinful nature” [8:4]). That is, those who have Christ necessarily have the Holy Spirit, and therefore they do not follow the pattern of the world, but rather walk by the Spirit and produce spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:16–26).

In other contexts the same apostle can describe Christians as “carnal” (KJV) or “worldly” (NIV). “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. . . . For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?” (1 Cor. 3:1–3). Here Paul rebukes the Corinthian Christians for their immaturity. The Spirit has sanctified them (6:11), but in their sinful pride and divisiveness they appear to belong to the world, the evil age of sin and death. They must “grow up” so that their conduct befits the Spirit, who now dwells in them.

Although Paul’s two uses of “carnal” seem opposed to each other, he is simply calling his Corinthian readers to live consistently with the truths that he expounded in Romans. Christians are fundamentally not carnal, but spiritual. They should therefore act like it in a life marked by faith, hope, and especially love (1 Cor. 13). These are the true signs that someone has the Holy Spirit, even though the Christian may lapse into attitudes and behaviors inconsistent with this new identity in Christ.

Carnelian–A precious red stone. It is one of the jewels in the high priest’s breastpiece (Exod. 28:17; 39:10), as well as in the “covering” (similar to the high priest’s breastpiece) for the king of Tyre, who is portrayed as a priest serving in the temple garden of Eden (Ezek. 28:13 NRSV). In the book of Revelation, God, who sits on the throne, has the appearance of carnelian (4:2–3), and carnelian is one of the precious stones in the walls of the new Jerusalem (21:20).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Beyond its obvious literal sense, “flesh” denotes the physicality of one’s life in this world, often in contrast to the spiritual dimension. Both the OT (Heb. she’er, basar) and NT (Gk. sarx) use “flesh” to refer to the physical dimension of human existence, often assigning varying degrees of figurative and contextual nuances to the word. “Flesh” as the cover term for fallen humanity and sinfulness is a distinctive NT development. For example, the expression “all flesh” in the OT is often merely equivalent to the collective human race (e.g., Gen. 6:12; Isa. 40:5 KJV). Even when the term is used in contrast to “spirit” (e.g., Isa. 31:3; Jer. 17:5), “flesh” is not so much “antispiritual” as “nonspiritual.” John even refers to the mystery of incarnation as the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14).

It is mostly in Paul’s letters that we find clear depiction of flesh as the seat of the carnal and sinful nature of humanity. The flesh stands for the totality of destructive effects of the original sin on the human nature. Thus, the flesh is in essence the sinful nature that Adam left for all subsequent generations to inherit (Gal. 5:17). Before it is redeemed and transformed, it is “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3 NRSV) waiting to be condemned by the holy God and his law, and inevitably leading to death (7:5). It is inseparable from lust (Gal. 5:16; 1 Pet. 4:2). In the reprobate, unregenerate state, human nature in its entirety is under the control of the flesh (Eph. 2:3). Since corrupt humans basically sow the flesh and reap the flesh, they can neither please God nor obey the law (Rom. 8:3, 8). It is significant that salvation is expressed in terms of overcoming the flesh. In wrapping up an exhortation regarding spiritual life, Paul concludes that those who nailed their flesh to the cross along with its passions and desires are “those who belong to Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:24).

For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.

Imagery of God

God’s character and attributes are revealed primarily through the use of imagery, the best and most understandable way to describe the mysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describe God’s being and character. Some examples follow here.

God is compared to the father who shows compassion and love to his children (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used by the prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesus predominantly uses the language of “Father” in reference to God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationship with the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel even before the Israelites have a human king (1 Sam. 10:19).

The Psalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’s sovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24; 74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as the shepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict his nature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image of the potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, who creates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as the long-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the setting of war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against his enemy (Exod. 15:3).

God is also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), and lawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is also frequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionate care, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, and more (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is often referred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, as does the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit is identified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide (John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared to various things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps. 27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut. 32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many images in nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g., Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.

Last, anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’s activities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak of God: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2 Chron. 16:9), mouth (Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra 7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Names and Attributes of God

The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (See also Names of God.)

Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Below are further explanations of some of the representative attributes of God.

Holiness. The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all other attributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by the adjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holy righteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is the only supremely holy one (1 Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’s name is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemned as guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one who has concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned among the nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of his defiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealed by his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but also he expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All the sacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements of holiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character of holiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and he brings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).

Love and justice. Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledge of God without having love (1 John 4:8). Images of the father and the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’s love (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4). God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his only Son Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1 John 4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’s sacrificial love (1 John 3:16).

God’s justice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4; Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps. 99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’s justice is demonstrated in judging people according to their deeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice by upholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicating those afflicted (1 Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial in implementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, God requires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

God keeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice. God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa. The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in one act. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people; because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of their sins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

Righteousness and mercy. God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’s nature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness (Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness and justice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14). God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness will ultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22; cf. Ps. 7:11).

The English word “mercy” renders various words in the original languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek, charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate these variously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,” “kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy” is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’s mercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In the Psalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosen people (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins are forgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), and even sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14). God is “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

God keeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. His righteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does one operate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy is shown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent of their sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness. God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that he made with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to his character, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seen in fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulness by fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3; Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build the temple that he promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–13; 1 Kings 8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon and returning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3). God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending Jesus Christ, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness. Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), in his work of creation (1 Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), and in his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience. God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which is a favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts 13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa. 42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophet Jonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10). The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people toward repentance (Rom. 2:4).

God of the Trinity

The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2 Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 2 Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1 Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

In Christian theology, the Third Person of the Trinity. The usage derives from the NT, in which the divine Spirit is treated as an independent person who is instrumental in salvation and is worthy of the praise accorded to both the Father and the Son (John 14:16–23; Rom. 8:26–27; 1 Pet. 1:2).

Old Testament

The scarcity of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the OT (only in Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11) does not imply lack of interest or importance. While it should be recognized that in the OT the person of the Holy Spirit receives nothing like the systematic reflection found in the NT, when one includes correlative terms, such as “Spirit of God,” “my Spirit,” “wind,” or “breath,” it is apparent that OT writers attributed great significance to God’s Spirit. Thus, the Spirit was at work in the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2). Adam and Eve are uniquely given life by the breath of God (Gen. 2:7). The Spirit enables the building of the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3), gives voice to the message of the prophets (Num. 11:29; cf. 2 Pet. 1:21), empowers Israel’s leaders (1 Sam. 16:13), and provides access to God’s presence (Ps. 51:11). Yet in all this, the work of the Spirit in the OT is sporadic, occasional, and localized. Thus, the prophets long for a new age when God’s people will more perfectly enjoy the Spirit’s presence (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; 61:1; Joel 2:28).

New Testament

The Spirit in the ministry of Christ. The NT views the OT prophetic hope for the Spirit as fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18–21). The unique relationship between God’s Holy Spirit and the person and work of Jesus explains the systemic reflection that the Holy Spirit receives in the NT. This is signaled at the very beginning of Jesus’ life, when the Holy Spirit “comes upon” Mary, overshadowing her with “the power of the Most High” (1:35). Similarly, at the start of Jesus’ public ministry, the Holy Spirit “descended on him” at baptism (3:22). This anointing by the Spirit initiates and empowers Jesus’ public ministry, from his preaching, to his miraculous works, to his perfect obedience (Luke 4:14–18; John 3:34; Acts 10:38). Even his sacrificial death is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14).

Significantly, just as the Holy Spirit empowered the life and death of Jesus, so too is the Spirit responsible for his resurrection and characteristic of his glorious reign. Death is not a defeat for Jesus: he is “vindicated by the Spirit” (1 Tim. 3:16), “appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4; cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). Furthermore, at his resurrection, Jesus comes into a new phase of full and perfect possession of the eternal Spirit as the reward for his obedience. So complete is this union that Paul at one point claims that “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17).

The Spirit in the church and the believer. The church and its members are the immediate beneficiaries of Christ’s spiritual fullness. Since Jesus is now a “life-giving spirit” through his resurrection and ascension (1 Cor. 15:45), he is able to fulfill the promise of Spirit baptism (Luke 3:16). This baptism takes place in the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, which marks the birth of the NT church. The apostles, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, provide true and powerful testimony about Jesus (John 16:4–15), testimony that serves as the church’s foundation and principal tradition (Eph. 2:20). The work of the Spirit continues within the church in the postapostolic age, uniting its members in Christ for God’s holy purpose (Eph. 2:22).

This same outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the salvation of individual believers. Believers receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:14). The Spirit in turn unites them to Christ and all his benefits (Gal. 3:2; Eph. 1:3), including his life (Heb. 4:15–16), suffering (Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 4:14), death (Rom. 6:3), resurrection (Rom. 6:5), justification (Rom. 4:25), and glorious reign in heaven (Phil. 3:20). These benefits, though undoubtedly perfected and consummated only at Christ’s return (Phil. 1:6), are characteristic of believers’ present experience, enjoyed now because the Spirit dwells within them as the “firstfruits” of the harvest to come (Rom. 8:23; cf. Gal. 2:19–20). This indwelling of the Spirit results in new birth and new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), a newness identified with the life that Christ received in his resurrection (Rom. 8:11).

For this reason, believers are urged to further the work of the Spirit in their lives until the bodily resurrection of all God’s people. They are to cultivate the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22), and they are correspondingly warned not to “grieve the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore, since new life is initiated by the Spirit (John 3:6–8), Christians are to remain in that Spirit, not turning aside in reliance on vain and useless principles (Gal. 3:1–5). Conversely, they are to be “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), putting off the old person and putting on the new (4:22). This filling grounds every aspect of the believer’s life, from obedience, to worship, to the hope of resurrection. The Spirit, in uniting believers to all the riches of Christ and his resurrection, is therefore central in the work of salvation. See also Spirit.

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

In the KJV, words that mean “alive,” “to make alive,” or “to revive” (e.g., Num. 16:30; Ps. 71:20; John 5:21; Acts 10:42; Rom. 8:11; 2 Tim. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:5).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

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.”

In the OT, heavenly beings or angels are sometimes referred to as “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss. 82:6; 89:6). The more important background for the NT, however, is the use of the term with reference to the nation Israel and the messianic king from David’s line. Israel was God’s son by virtue of God’s unique calling, deliverance, and protection. Hosea 11:1 reads, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Similar references to God as the father of his people appear throughout the OT (Exod. 4:22; Num. 11:12; Deut. 14:1; 32:5, 19; Isa. 43:6; 45:11; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, 20; Hos. 2:1). The king from the line of David is referred to as the son of God by virtue of his special relationship to God and his representative role among the people. In the Davidic covenant, God promises David concerning his descendant, “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (2 Sam. 7:14; cf. Pss. 2:7; 89:26). Later Judaism appears to have taken up these passages and identified the coming Messiah as the “son of God.”

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship. The angel Gabriel connects Jesus’ status as “Son of the Most High” with his reception of the throne of David (Luke 1:32). At Jesus’ baptism (which Luke identifies as Jesus’ messianic anointing [Luke 3:21; 4:1, 14, 18]), the Father declares Jesus to be “my Son, whom I love” (3:22), an allusion to Ps. 2:7. Satan tempts Jesus as the Son of God to abandon obedience to the Father and claim independent authority (Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13). Peter confesses that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), and the high priest questions whether Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mark 14:61; Matt. 26:63). In these and other texts “Son of God” is almost synonymous with “Messiah” (cf. Mark 1:1; Luke 4:41; 22:70; John 11:27; 20:31; Acts 9:20, 22). In other contexts, Jesus’ divine sonship appears to exceed messianic categories. Jesus prays to God as his Father (“Abba” [Mark 14:36]) and refers to himself as the Son, who uniquely knows and reveals the Father. The Father has committed all things to him. No one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him (Matt. 11:25–27; Luke 10:21–22). It is by virtue of Jesus’ unique sonship that he invites his disciples to pray to God as their Father (Matt. 6:9).

In the Fourth Gospel, the status of Jesus as the Son of God is especially important, indicating both Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and his essential deity. John introduces the notion of preexistent sonship in which the “Word” from creation is the Son (John 1:1–18; 17:5, 24). God sends into the world his Son (3:16), who reflects the glory of the Father (1:14; 14:6–11) and who will soon return (14:28). Jesus affirms that “I and the Father are one” (10:30), that “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (10:38). John’s purpose in writing is to provoke faith “that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31).

Some scholars reject the royal Jewish background of “the Son of God” when investigating the phrase in the Gospels. Instead, they appeal to Hellenistic sources to argue that Jesus as the Son of God is a “divine man” (theios anēr), which accounts for his ability to work miracles. This line of thinking, however, is fraught with many difficulties, not least of which is that the epithet is never used to describe the “divine man” in Greek literature.

In Paul’s thinking, the corporate, Israelite background of “Son of God” is renewed with reference to the NT people of God. Paul states that “theirs [the people of Israel] is the adoption to sonship” (Rom. 9:4). Although ethnic Israelites are rightfully called “sons of God,” this status is contingent upon being people of faith: “So in Jesus Christ you are all children of God through faith” (Gal. 3:26); Jesus’ death as the Son effects salvation (Rom. 8:2, 32; Gal. 2:20). The Spirit also plays a role in testifying with the spirits of believers that they are indeed children of God (Rom. 8:15–16), by which they cry, “Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:3–6). The believers’ status as God’s children will be completely revealed when they share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17).

In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.

Old Testament

The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”) is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.

The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2 Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).

On occasion in the OT, spirits are labeled “evil” (Judg. 9:23 ESV, NRSV, NASB). In the case of an evil spirit tormenting King Saul, the spirit was identified as “from the Lord” (1 Sam. 16:14–15, 23). According to the perspective of the ancients, once a person was possessed by a divine spirit, departure of such a spirit meant possession by a different spirit (1 Sam. 16:14). Such a perspective was common in the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds and stemmed from the religious fervor of Semitic nomads.

New Testament

The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).

Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:28–33; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).

The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1 Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1 Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.

Holy Spirit

God’s Spirit is described in the opening chapters of Genesis as partaking in creation. His Spirit likewise is seen throughout the OT as an agent in establishing God’s people as a nation and a people of his own. Leaders of Israel were chosen and possessed by the Spirit to assist in leading the people into God’s will (Deut. 34:9; Judg. 6:34; 15:14; 1 Sam. 11:6; 16:23). Typically, the moment the Spirit of God descended on a leader, miraculous fortitude, wisdom, and power resulted. The Spirit also provided whatever was needed for God’s prophets—courage, inspiration, and miracles (Num. 11:25; 1 Sam. 10:10; Isa. 11:2; Ezek. 2:2; Dan. 4:8; Joel 2:28). The office of prophet included prophesying both in the king’s court and among the people of the land. As the Spirit came on a prophet of God, the prophet would correct the king’s and others’ behavior and at times foretell the future or the outcome of possible decisions.

In the Synoptic Gospels, the Holy Spirit functions in much the same way as in the OT. One such function appears in Luke’s birth narrative when the angel answers Mary’s question as to how she might conceive while a virgin (Luke 1:34): “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (1:35). The Greek verb translated “will overshadow you” is used in the LXX to describe God’s protective nature (Pss. 91:4; 140:7). Likewise, the coming of God’s Spirit presented empowerment (Acts 1:8). Thus, Mary received both divine empowerment and protection. As the birth narrative continues, Luke records how other characters in the story, Elizabeth and Zechariah, were filled with the Spirit when Mary came to visit while pregnant with Jesus and when John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, was born (1:41, 67). The evangelists record the Spirit descending on Jesus at the time of his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32–34) and describe him as full of the Spirit when he was led by the Spirit into the desert (Luke 4:1). Finally, in John’s Gospel the Spirit is the promised comforter whom Jesus will give to his followers. He will testify about Christ (John 15:26).

In the new covenant the Spirit-possession of the OT gave way to believers’ reception of the Spirit at conversion. In Acts the Holy Spirit is presented as instrumental in carrying out the mission of the church, providing power and signs as well as moving and motivating missionaries. The apostle Paul attributes to the Holy Spirit the function of imbuing believers and the church with an assortment of virtues (Gal. 5:22), gifts (Rom. 12:7–8; 1 Cor. 12:1–11), and ministers (Eph. 4:7–13). He uses the idea of life in the Spirit as a point of contrast with life in the flesh. In John’s letters the Spirit is described as providing discernment of truth (1 John 4:6). See also Holy Spirit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Binding can mean physically restraining a person or people (Judg. 15:13; 2 Kings 25:7; Job 16:8; Pss. 119:61; 149:8), mending, as with a wound (Isa. 61:1; Ezek. 34:16; Hos. 6:1), or taking a legally constraining oath (1 Sam. 14:27–30; Neh. 10:29; Jer. 50:5). The opposite of binding is loosing or setting free, which can describe literally being freed from bonds (e.g., Acts 16:26) or the release from something that is binding.

The law, a binding covenant between Israel and God, is to be literally bound on one’s forehead as a reminder (Deut. 6:8; 11:18). Non-Israelites who wish to identify with the God of Israel can bind themselves to his laws (Isa. 56:6). In Num. 30:6, 9, 13, an oath taken by a young woman still in her father’s house will be binding only if the father is not against it. If he is against it, it is not binding and she is loosed from it (30:5). This is the same in the case of a married woman, whose approval has to come from the husband. However, for widows or divorced women, all pledges they make are binding since there are no men in their lives to void the pledges (30:9).

While contracts were binding, some had time limits. For example, the seventh year and the fiftieth year (Jubilee) allowed for cancellation of such binding contracts as slavery or land ownership (Lev. 25:10–54; 27:24).

The binding of Isaac (Gen. 22), traditionally known as the Akedah, has theological significance for both Christians and Jews. It is interpreted as a form of resurrection, a coming from the dead for Isaac after Yahweh had instructed his father, Abraham, to sacrifice him (Heb. 11:17–19). God inquires of Job whether he can “bind the chains of the Pleiades” or “loosen Orion’s belt” (Job 38:31).

The book of Proverbs encourages the wise to metaphorically bind love and faithfulness around their necks (3:3) and their parents’ commands and teachings to the heart (6:21) and the finger (7:3); it also talks of folly being bound up in the heart of a child (22:15), perhaps alluded to by Paul in Rom. 11:32 when he says that God has bound all people to disobedience that he may have mercy on them.

Introducing his ministry in Luke 4:18, Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1, which talks of binding up the brokenhearted, a reference to his healing ministry. Further, binding and loosing are found in Jesus’ commissioning of his disciples (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; cf. John 20:23), where it may be referring to the binding of demons and loosing of demoniacs bound or oppressed by demons (cf. Mark 3:14–16; 6:7; Luke 13:6). Since Jesus has the power to bind and loose (John 8:36), he chooses to empower his followers to do the same. Binding Satan is the subject of the ultimate eschatological battle in Jewish lore (T. Levi 18:11–12) and becomes central in Christianity. Jesus encounters satanic forces embodied in humans and looses such people from the chains of Satan (Mark 5:3; Luke 13:12, 16). Ultimately, Satan is to be bound for a millennium and loosed only for eternal damnation (Rev. 20:1–3).

Paul invokes Jewish law about marriage by claiming that one is bound in marriage only as long as one’s partner is alive (Rom. 7:2). In this way, Paul explains how Christians are dead to the law, because Jesus has died on their behalf, thus setting them free from the law (Rom. 7:4–6; cf. Heb. 9:15). To the Corinthians also he talks of the binding nature of marriage but with a caveat: if the marriage is between a believer and a nonbeliever, and if the nonbeliever leaves, then the believer is not bound (1 Cor. 7). But for Paul, being set free from sin (Rom. 8:2) means being bound to God (6:22).

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

On occasion, the language of being “elect” is used as a description of Christ, or perhaps even a title. Isaiah, in one of his Servant Songs, gives a description that is probably best taken as a veiled reference to Christ in his unique relationship with the Father: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [or ‘elect’] one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1). There is similar usage in the NT, where Jesus is described in 1 Pet. 2:6 (using a quotation from Isa. 28:16): “For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen [or ‘elect’] and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ ”

Many times the word “elect” is used in Scripture as a synonym for believers. For example, Jesus speaks of the future time when “he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Similarly, Peter addresses his first letter “to God’s elect” (1 Pet. 1:1). John does something similar in his second letter, addressed to “the lady chosen by God [KJV, RSV: “elect lady”] and to her children, whom I love in the truth” (2 John 1).

Election and Salvation

There is more to this terminology, though, than simply a descriptive name for Christ or God’s people. Other passages are more explanatory in nature and imply a definite and active place for God’s involvement in the salvation process. For example, Peter continues on in his introduction to his first letter with a description of the elect as those “who have been chosen [KJV: ‘elect’] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here there is the key question of how we should understand the role of God’s foreknowledge in the expression “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Some argue that this is simply telling us that God is able to look forward and know ahead of time who will exercise faith and be saved, so salvation is simply based on a purely human decision after all.

However, Rom. 9 suggests otherwise. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, sheds light on God’s election of his people. Paul is in the process of explaining how God’s plan of redemption (which he has been developing in Rom. 1–8) applies to his own Jewish people. If the gospel is really as powerful as Paul claims, why has it produced so little fruit among God’s own covenant people, the Jews? Paul answers, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). Then, in the following verses, Paul explains what he means by “not all Israel are Israel.” Not every child of Abraham is a child of faith (9:7–13). The promise has come only through Isaac, and not through Abraham’s other sons, Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah (see Gen. 25:1). Similarly, the line of promise and blessing does not involve all of Isaac and Rebekah’s children either, but only Jacob and not Esau (9:10–13). Here Paul explains, “Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (9:11–12). In support of this conclusion, Paul quotes from Mal. 1:2–3: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (9:13). The bottom line, according to Paul, is not one’s ancestry at all, but God’s own choice. God tells Moses in Exod. 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (quoted in Rom. 9:15). Paul gives his summary of election: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). He rests his case with the classic OT illustration of God’s hardening of Pharaoh (9:17) before concluding, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

Romans 9 is not an isolated passage of Scripture. The apostle John says much the same of Jesus’ ministry, and how salvation is specifically to all “those who believed in his name”; to them “he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12–13). The last part of this passage is key: salvation ultimately depends not upon “natural descent” or one’s human ancestry (including whether one is Jewish or not), nor upon “human decision” (including any and all acts of the human will), nor upon a “husband’s will” (a more difficult expression that probably refers to the decisions of others in the family), but solely and ultimately only on being “born of God.”

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Certainly, there is a mystery in all of this. There is no easy way to understand the negative process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or to explain the mechanics of the positive process of election. Scripture often describes God himself as the one who has hardened the hearts of various individuals. In Exod. 4:21, for example, God says to Moses, “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, Scripture is less clear and simply tells us that “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” (Exod. 7:13). Then there are still other times when Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process of hardening his own heart, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 8:15). Undoubtedly, the best way to understand this is to see a negative response such as the hardening of a person’s heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. In a similar way, both salvation and spiritual growth are other spiritual realities that also involve the mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response. Paul captures this tension in Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

There is also the question of the nonelect, sometimes put in terms of “reprobation” or “double predestination.” If God is actively involved in the positive act of bringing human beings into a proper relationship with himself in salvation, is he actively involved equally in choosing those who will never respond in faith and will suffer an eternity of judgment apart from him? Again, Christians are divided, and simplistic overgeneralizations do little to advance our understanding of this topic. Those who give precedence to God’s sovereignty in their understanding of the process of salvation usually see a greater involvement of God in the decisions of those who do not respond in faith; those who emphasize human involvement in salvation will also emphasize human decision in those who do not respond.

Those who emphasize God’s sovereignty in this mystery of the faith lean toward the Calvinistic or Reformed end of the scale. They tend also to emphasize the total depravity of humanity: the notion not that people are as bad as they can possibly be, but simply that sin has tainted every area of the mind, will, and emotions, making a positive turning to God, apart from God’s grace, humanly impossible. They also emphasize the definite atonement, the doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect. On the other hand, those who emphasize human involvement, often called “Arminians,” tend to emphasize the importance of human free will in order to create a sense of responsibility for one’s decisions. They also emphasize an unlimited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died potentially for anyone and everyone.

Summary

The proper balance in Scripture seems to involve both God’s sovereignty and human involvement. Peter captures some of this need for balance: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Election is ultimately God’s work, but at the same time there is a human involvement in it. Charles Spurgeon’s illustration seems appropriate here. Human will and predestination are like the two rails on a railroad track: everywhere we look they are separate and distinct and thus irreconcilable; yet it is only off in the distance (really in the mind of God himself) that these two complementary truths come together in their perfect resolution. There is no question that “elect” and “election” are biblical terms; the key question is how to understand this difficult topic and to work out all the logical implications in terms of sharing the gospel with others in a meaningful and appropriate manner.

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

On occasion, the language of being “elect” is used as a description of Christ, or perhaps even a title. Isaiah, in one of his Servant Songs, gives a description that is probably best taken as a veiled reference to Christ in his unique relationship with the Father: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [or ‘elect’] one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1). There is similar usage in the NT, where Jesus is described in 1 Pet. 2:6 (using a quotation from Isa. 28:16): “For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen [or ‘elect’] and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ ”

Many times the word “elect” is used in Scripture as a synonym for believers. For example, Jesus speaks of the future time when “he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Similarly, Peter addresses his first letter “to God’s elect” (1 Pet. 1:1). John does something similar in his second letter, addressed to “the lady chosen by God [KJV, RSV: “elect lady”] and to her children, whom I love in the truth” (2 John 1).

Election and Salvation

There is more to this terminology, though, than simply a descriptive name for Christ or God’s people. Other passages are more explanatory in nature and imply a definite and active place for God’s involvement in the salvation process. For example, Peter continues on in his introduction to his first letter with a description of the elect as those “who have been chosen [KJV: ‘elect’] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here there is the key question of how we should understand the role of God’s foreknowledge in the expression “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Some argue that this is simply telling us that God is able to look forward and know ahead of time who will exercise faith and be saved, so salvation is simply based on a purely human decision after all.

However, Rom. 9 suggests otherwise. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, sheds light on God’s election of his people. Paul is in the process of explaining how God’s plan of redemption (which he has been developing in Rom. 1–8) applies to his own Jewish people. If the gospel is really as powerful as Paul claims, why has it produced so little fruit among God’s own covenant people, the Jews? Paul answers, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). Then, in the following verses, Paul explains what he means by “not all Israel are Israel.” Not every child of Abraham is a child of faith (9:7–13). The promise has come only through Isaac, and not through Abraham’s other sons, Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah (see Gen. 25:1). Similarly, the line of promise and blessing does not involve all of Isaac and Rebekah’s children either, but only Jacob and not Esau (9:10–13). Here Paul explains, “Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (9:11–12). In support of this conclusion, Paul quotes from Mal. 1:2–3: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (9:13). The bottom line, according to Paul, is not one’s ancestry at all, but God’s own choice. God tells Moses in Exod. 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (quoted in Rom. 9:15). Paul gives his summary of election: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). He rests his case with the classic OT illustration of God’s hardening of Pharaoh (9:17) before concluding, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

Romans 9 is not an isolated passage of Scripture. The apostle John says much the same of Jesus’ ministry, and how salvation is specifically to all “those who believed in his name”; to them “he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12–13). The last part of this passage is key: salvation ultimately depends not upon “natural descent” or one’s human ancestry (including whether one is Jewish or not), nor upon “human decision” (including any and all acts of the human will), nor upon a “husband’s will” (a more difficult expression that probably refers to the decisions of others in the family), but solely and ultimately only on being “born of God.”

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Certainly, there is a mystery in all of this. There is no easy way to understand the negative process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or to explain the mechanics of the positive process of election. Scripture often describes God himself as the one who has hardened the hearts of various individuals. In Exod. 4:21, for example, God says to Moses, “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, Scripture is less clear and simply tells us that “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” (Exod. 7:13). Then there are still other times when Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process of hardening his own heart, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 8:15). Undoubtedly, the best way to understand this is to see a negative response such as the hardening of a person’s heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. In a similar way, both salvation and spiritual growth are other spiritual realities that also involve the mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response. Paul captures this tension in Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

There is also the question of the nonelect, sometimes put in terms of “reprobation” or “double predestination.” If God is actively involved in the positive act of bringing human beings into a proper relationship with himself in salvation, is he actively involved equally in choosing those who will never respond in faith and will suffer an eternity of judgment apart from him? Again, Christians are divided, and simplistic overgeneralizations do little to advance our understanding of this topic. Those who give precedence to God’s sovereignty in their understanding of the process of salvation usually see a greater involvement of God in the decisions of those who do not respond in faith; those who emphasize human involvement in salvation will also emphasize human decision in those who do not respond.

Those who emphasize God’s sovereignty in this mystery of the faith lean toward the Calvinistic or Reformed end of the scale. They tend also to emphasize the total depravity of humanity: the notion not that people are as bad as they can possibly be, but simply that sin has tainted every area of the mind, will, and emotions, making a positive turning to God, apart from God’s grace, humanly impossible. They also emphasize the definite atonement, the doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect. On the other hand, those who emphasize human involvement, often called “Arminians,” tend to emphasize the importance of human free will in order to create a sense of responsibility for one’s decisions. They also emphasize an unlimited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died potentially for anyone and everyone.

Summary

The proper balance in Scripture seems to involve both God’s sovereignty and human involvement. Peter captures some of this need for balance: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Election is ultimately God’s work, but at the same time there is a human involvement in it. Charles Spurgeon’s illustration seems appropriate here. Human will and predestination are like the two rails on a railroad track: everywhere we look they are separate and distinct and thus irreconcilable; yet it is only off in the distance (really in the mind of God himself) that these two complementary truths come together in their perfect resolution. There is no question that “elect” and “election” are biblical terms; the key question is how to understand this difficult topic and to work out all the logical implications in terms of sharing the gospel with others in a meaningful and appropriate manner.

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

On occasion, the language of being “elect” is used as a description of Christ, or perhaps even a title. Isaiah, in one of his Servant Songs, gives a description that is probably best taken as a veiled reference to Christ in his unique relationship with the Father: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [or ‘elect’] one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1). There is similar usage in the NT, where Jesus is described in 1 Pet. 2:6 (using a quotation from Isa. 28:16): “For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen [or ‘elect’] and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ ”

Many times the word “elect” is used in Scripture as a synonym for believers. For example, Jesus speaks of the future time when “he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Similarly, Peter addresses his first letter “to God’s elect” (1 Pet. 1:1). John does something similar in his second letter, addressed to “the lady chosen by God [KJV, RSV: “elect lady”] and to her children, whom I love in the truth” (2 John 1).

Election and Salvation

There is more to this terminology, though, than simply a descriptive name for Christ or God’s people. Other passages are more explanatory in nature and imply a definite and active place for God’s involvement in the salvation process. For example, Peter continues on in his introduction to his first letter with a description of the elect as those “who have been chosen [KJV: ‘elect’] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here there is the key question of how we should understand the role of God’s foreknowledge in the expression “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Some argue that this is simply telling us that God is able to look forward and know ahead of time who will exercise faith and be saved, so salvation is simply based on a purely human decision after all.

However, Rom. 9 suggests otherwise. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, sheds light on God’s election of his people. Paul is in the process of explaining how God’s plan of redemption (which he has been developing in Rom. 1–8) applies to his own Jewish people. If the gospel is really as powerful as Paul claims, why has it produced so little fruit among God’s own covenant people, the Jews? Paul answers, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). Then, in the following verses, Paul explains what he means by “not all Israel are Israel.” Not every child of Abraham is a child of faith (9:7–13). The promise has come only through Isaac, and not through Abraham’s other sons, Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah (see Gen. 25:1). Similarly, the line of promise and blessing does not involve all of Isaac and Rebekah’s children either, but only Jacob and not Esau (9:10–13). Here Paul explains, “Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (9:11–12). In support of this conclusion, Paul quotes from Mal. 1:2–3: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (9:13). The bottom line, according to Paul, is not one’s ancestry at all, but God’s own choice. God tells Moses in Exod. 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (quoted in Rom. 9:15). Paul gives his summary of election: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). He rests his case with the classic OT illustration of God’s hardening of Pharaoh (9:17) before concluding, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

Romans 9 is not an isolated passage of Scripture. The apostle John says much the same of Jesus’ ministry, and how salvation is specifically to all “those who believed in his name”; to them “he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12–13). The last part of this passage is key: salvation ultimately depends not upon “natural descent” or one’s human ancestry (including whether one is Jewish or not), nor upon “human decision” (including any and all acts of the human will), nor upon a “husband’s will” (a more difficult expression that probably refers to the decisions of others in the family), but solely and ultimately only on being “born of God.”

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Certainly, there is a mystery in all of this. There is no easy way to understand the negative process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or to explain the mechanics of the positive process of election. Scripture often describes God himself as the one who has hardened the hearts of various individuals. In Exod. 4:21, for example, God says to Moses, “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, Scripture is less clear and simply tells us that “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” (Exod. 7:13). Then there are still other times when Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process of hardening his own heart, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 8:15). Undoubtedly, the best way to understand this is to see a negative response such as the hardening of a person’s heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. In a similar way, both salvation and spiritual growth are other spiritual realities that also involve the mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response. Paul captures this tension in Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

There is also the question of the nonelect, sometimes put in terms of “reprobation” or “double predestination.” If God is actively involved in the positive act of bringing human beings into a proper relationship with himself in salvation, is he actively involved equally in choosing those who will never respond in faith and will suffer an eternity of judgment apart from him? Again, Christians are divided, and simplistic overgeneralizations do little to advance our understanding of this topic. Those who give precedence to God’s sovereignty in their understanding of the process of salvation usually see a greater involvement of God in the decisions of those who do not respond in faith; those who emphasize human involvement in salvation will also emphasize human decision in those who do not respond.

Those who emphasize God’s sovereignty in this mystery of the faith lean toward the Calvinistic or Reformed end of the scale. They tend also to emphasize the total depravity of humanity: the notion not that people are as bad as they can possibly be, but simply that sin has tainted every area of the mind, will, and emotions, making a positive turning to God, apart from God’s grace, humanly impossible. They also emphasize the definite atonement, the doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect. On the other hand, those who emphasize human involvement, often called “Arminians,” tend to emphasize the importance of human free will in order to create a sense of responsibility for one’s decisions. They also emphasize an unlimited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died potentially for anyone and everyone.

Summary

The proper balance in Scripture seems to involve both God’s sovereignty and human involvement. Peter captures some of this need for balance: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Election is ultimately God’s work, but at the same time there is a human involvement in it. Charles Spurgeon’s illustration seems appropriate here. Human will and predestination are like the two rails on a railroad track: everywhere we look they are separate and distinct and thus irreconcilable; yet it is only off in the distance (really in the mind of God himself) that these two complementary truths come together in their perfect resolution. There is no question that “elect” and “election” are biblical terms; the key question is how to understand this difficult topic and to work out all the logical implications in terms of sharing the gospel with others in a meaningful and appropriate manner.

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to proper conduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of world he created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. It also contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both as creatures of this God and, in some instances, as the unique beneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Bible sets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasons that justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture were not moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail; nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God and Savior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore, is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitive statement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

Scripture identifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beings have the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrong that acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. The fall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and our consciences can become “seared” through chronic disobedience and doctrinal treason (1 Tim. 4:2). We do not, therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’s law—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—to eliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No one will be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who you were and no hint of what you expected of me.”

Second, as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this one being fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices. Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offers a high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its best moments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the church must do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (at least, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular content and why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvement project. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer every ethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologies and cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the first century or any previous age. But the church can be assured that a faithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace of God, please him even today, whatever our particular circumstances.

The Logic of Biblical Morality

The moral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consisting of duties and final objectives. When we obey God’s commandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives in creating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality is complete and informative compared to systems derived from other worldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we must do from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripture because its theological statements are always practically applied and never presented with merely theoretical interest.

The objectives of biblical morality. The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes: the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, two objectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipated side effect of the other.

To glorify God. The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He is maximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom, power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite of that fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sins so that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects, God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No one ever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the final objective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—to know him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actions must testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging others to do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what he abhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to live in unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior define what it means to glorify God.

To be happy in God’s presence. The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy in ways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, the Christian system of ethics differs from moral theories that either reject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or else reduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinners need our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainly desires our happiness and often presents himself as the final source of it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency follows from the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating all things. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; and because he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless rather than selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and the very best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results from our glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then, biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make human happiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable. God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringing him glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory. The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church what happiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials of this life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 12:2).

The means of biblical morality. Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—how to reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and how to value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, several major themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appear below, allowing some overlap between them.

Trusting in God’s promises. Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he has promised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and not allow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, we proclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him. Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OT history with an application to the present Christian life. The gospel is a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to our account. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandments because we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it (so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with its corresponding negative results).

Keeping holiness and impurity separated. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of the universe. All things depend on him for their existence, and he is extreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love. Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,” as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He stands alone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannot entail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this duty is to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunning all forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancient Israelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence and gave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa. 6:1–5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15–16).

In Scripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or the holy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimes pedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes one intrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone to have other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil to lie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if it expresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide. But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases, just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by God for instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evil as such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’s presence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. It is not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and permitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wear blended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed over in the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules of this kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving an objective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh on everyday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of God upon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in any case, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT as well, where it informs the question “What must I do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

Imitating God/Christ. The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation of God and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility, and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior toward people becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, for example, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear, as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one who follows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, so that we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15). They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The new commandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example, puts on display his character and their own relationship to him (13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,” just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn in Phil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humility that surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews 12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in his glory.

Living out our unique identity. Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are, because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, and lying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, most of the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that it often contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (or doing X is urgent for you), either (a) because you belong to God in a special way or (b) because he has done this special thing for you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT, the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however, the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moral exhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, a recognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

The linkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior, is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text moves from prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OT as motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X, for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, for I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In some cases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in, “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again, “You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers to the people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’s experience of God’s particular love.

In the NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appears often, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Paul and Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin must resist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the Holy Spirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him and shun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become an unleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of the old yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1 Cor. 5). The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one new humanity (1 Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tells his readers to love one another because they have been “born again” of “imperishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royal priesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, they must proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1 Pet. 2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and we are the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In all these cases, the target audience has a special relationship to God that imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that they reflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals that he has set before them.

Living in unity with one another. The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all other relationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve would live in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, God scatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9; 1 Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’s people live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OT teaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands between Yahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite and another. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinished business of the OT story.

The NT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task) of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live in unity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed, people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind of people, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,” so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that his exhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, rather than the individual. Christians must display the social virtues of love and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both of which separate believer from believer and each from the head of the church, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case for Christian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps, in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts a divisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2 Corinthians is arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church into cults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us away from one another and into competition for influence, wealth, and public honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force is centripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leading each person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christ might be built up in him.

The common experience/sharing of something with someone else. In the NT, the most common Greek word group to express this idea has the root koin- (“common”), with the cognate verb koinōneō, noun koinōnia, and adjective koinos. But the concept of fellowship extends well beyond this single word family and finds expression in a variety of different contexts.

Fellowship between the Members of the Trinity

The Gospel of John makes several claims about the fellowship that the members of the Trinity have experienced with each other from all eternity. Jesus claims, “I and the Father are one” (10:30) and “It is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work” (14:10). Regarding the Holy Spirit, Jesus says, “He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine” (16:14–15). The Son has even shared in the Father’s glory from before the creation of the world (17:5). Within the unity of the Godhead, the individual members experience perfect fellowship as they share in the fullness of deity.

Fellowship between Jesus and Outcasts

During his earthly ministry, Jesus modeled God’s love for the marginalized by associating with them. Such fellowship often took the form of sharing meals with outcasts such as tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15–17; Luke 5:29–32; 7:36–50; 19:1–10), a practice that provoked sharp criticism from the Pharisees (Luke 15:1–2). In Luke 15:3–32, Jesus tells three parables in response to such criticism. These parables indicate that his fellowship with sinners demonstrates God’s love for the lost and the joy that comes from restored fellowship with God. Such table fellowship served as a foretaste of the eschatological messianic banquet, when all of God’s people (Jew and Gentile alike) will eat together in the kingdom of God as the fellowship of the forgiven (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29–30; Rev. 19:6–9).

Fellowship between Believers and God

The close and intimate fellowship that the members of the Trinity experience with one another is something that Jesus prays for his people to experience themselves (John 17:20–26). He asks that believers “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (17:21). Just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father, believers are described as being in both the Father and the Son. The stated purpose for such fellowship is twofold: that the world may know and believe that the Father has sent the Son, and that the Father loves believers even as he has loved the Son (17:21, 23). Central to this fellowship between God and believers is the sharing of the glory that the Father and the Son experience (17:22). Jesus expresses similar truths in John 15:1–11 when he speaks of himself as the true vine and his followers as the branches who must remain in him because “apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5).

Although fellowship with God is something that Christ has purchased for his people through his death and resurrection, it can be broken by sin in the believer’s life: “If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth” (1 John 1:6). When sin does break a believer’s fellowship with God, we are reassured, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). This restoration of fellowship is based on the work of Jesus to plead our case before the Father (2:1).

Paul frequently speaks of the believer’s fellowship with Christ, even though he rarely uses the word “fellowship” to speak of this reality. It is God who calls the believer into fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), but such fellowship involves both the “power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10). When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they are participating in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16–17). Far more frequently, Paul expresses the concept of fellowship with Christ by his use of the phrase “with Christ.” Believers have been crucified, buried, raised, clothed, and seated in the heavenly realms with Christ (Rom. 6:4–9; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20–21; Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:12–13; 3:1–4). They also share in the inheritance that Christ has received from the Father (Rom. 8:16–17) and one day will reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12).

Fellowship between Believers and Others

The fellowship that believers have with one another is an extension of their fellowship with God. John wrote, “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Just as walking in darkness falsifies a believer’s claim to fellowship with God, so also walking in the light is necessary for fellowship with other believers (1:6–7). Paul strikes a similar note when he says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:14–15). The point is not to avoid all contact with unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–10), but rather that the believer is so fundamentally identified with Christ that to identify with unbelievers should be avoided.

Because they are joined to Christ by faith, believers share a wide variety of experiences and blessings with each other. In the broadest sense, they share in the gospel and its blessings (1 Cor. 9:23; Phil. 1:5–7; Philem. 6; 2 Pet. 1:4), especially the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13–14; Phil. 2:1). But the most common shared experience is suffering. When believers suffer because of their identification with Christ, they are said to share in Christ’s suffering (Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). In addition to this vertical element, there is a horizontal aspect. Because believers are united in one body (1 Cor. 12:12–13; Eph. 4:4–6), when one believer suffers, the entire body shares in that suffering (2 Cor. 1:7; Heb. 10:33; Rev. 1:9).

From the earliest days of the church, believers found very tangible ways to demonstrate that their fellowship was rooted in their common faith in Jesus. Immediately after Pentecost, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. . . . All the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:42–44). This common experience led believers to voluntarily sell their possessions and share with any who had a need (2:45; 4:32). This meeting of very practical needs was motivated by a common experience of God’s abundant generosity in freely giving his Son (Rom. 8:32). The self-sacrificial sharing of resources became a staple of the early church (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 6:18) and provided an opportunity for Paul to demonstrate the unity of the church when he collected money from Gentile churches to alleviate the suffering of Jewish Christians in Judea (Rom. 15:26–27; 2 Cor. 8–9).

Conclusion

Biblical fellowship is not merely close association with other believers. The NT emphasizes what believers share in Christ rather than whom they share it with. True biblical fellowship between believers is an outworking of their fellowship with God through the gospel.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

The term “incarnation” refers to something being “enfleshed” (Lat., in carne). It should not be confused with, or even related to, the similar term “reincarnation,” nor does it parallel polytheistic myths about redeemer gods created by Hellenistic and gnostic cults. Rather, in the context of Christian teaching, “incarnation” expresses what happened when Jesus, who had been with God for all eternity, stepped onto the historical scene as a human being (John 1:14; Col. 1:19; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 1:1–2). The Greek NT uses en sarki (“in flesh”) repeatedly as a reference to Jesus’ human nature. Hymns such as 1 Tim. 3:16 show the confessional character of Christ’s incarnation, giving it strong theological significance (cf. the similar confessional emphasis of Phil. 2:5–11). The defining power of such confessions comes to the fore strongly in 1 John 4:3 (cf. 2 John 7), where John deems those who reject genuine incarnation to be filled with the spirit of the antichrist. Paul understands Jesus’ work on the cross in light of the incarnation (Col. 1:22; cf. 1 Pet. 4:1) and considers incarnation the reason Christ could accomplish what the law of Moses could not (Rom. 8:3; Eph. 2:15).

It follows that incarnation is central to Christian theology, an indispensable tenet that cannot be reduced to a parenthetical aside to the doctrine of the virgin birth. If anything, it is the other way around. More significant than the timing and specific circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth, which are detailed only as introductions to Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels, the incarnation speaks to the theological importance of what God did by sending his Son. Put differently, the significance of the incarnation cannot be overstated; not only is Jesus God’s perfect revelation of himself, but also the fact that he stepped into the field of matter, participating directly in the history of his own creation, has forever changed human thinking and the pursuit of knowledge.

Incarnation and Science

Athanasius, who safeguarded the incarnation of Christ by his claim that Jesus was not just born in the likeness of God but was also himself the very nature of God, saw that Christianity provided a new starting point for all human understanding of the world. This new starting point made the foundational dualism of classical rationalism impossible (sensible versus intelligible, material versus spiritual). The Christian claim of God’s actual incarnation in Christ required a complete reconsideration of the relationship between God and the world. Ultimate reality was no longer unknowable; God had expressed himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ.

From this, the fourth-century Cappadocian fathers developed four foundational principles that enabled new approaches to scientific pursuits. (1) Since the cosmos is the creation of a rational God who has also made humans in his image, it follows that the cosmos in principle is comprehensible by the human mind. (2) Since God created the cosmos as a free act of his will, and it is not simply an emanation of God, the cosmos has relative autonomy. That is, not everything that happens is the direct will of God. (3) Since God created the heavens and the earth, it follows that the “heavenly bodies” are not (as Aristotle claimed) made of a substance different from the elements that comprise the earth (interestingly, Galileo was condemned by an Aristotelian church for claiming that the moon is made of the same substance as the earth). (4) Because of the incarnation, humans may use material means for the advancement of human salvation. This allowed the church not to follow the Hebrew tradition of rejecting Greek medicine.

Incarnation and Christian Faith

The biblical emphasis on incarnation moves faith from the realm of mythology to the realm of history. In contrast to mythological affirmations, where gods play out scenarios in “the heavenlies” that have fatalistic consequences for life on earth, incarnation grounds the Christian faith in factual, historical events. God is not “out there in the unknown,” but rather chose to step into history and reveal himself in a personal manner. In mythology, talk about god turns into fatalistic assertions; in biblical faith, talk about God turns into expressions of relationship. The fullness of Christ’s incarnation protects Christian faith from turning into aloof speculations on the eternal; rather, incarnation secures the connection to the real-life issues of the human situation. More than merely sending a vision to a “prophet,” God came to show humans how to live, prioritize, act, react, and so on.

Incarnation and History

Since the incarnation anchors the Christian faith in historical reality, history itself becomes revelatory and significant for a full understanding of God. Christ came and walked among people “in time,” and Christian believers want to know what that meant and means. Different from gnostic writings, for example, where God merely sends lofty, indefinite, timeless propositions for inner meditation (cf. Gospel of Thomas), biblical faith recognizes God’s actions on the turf of human life and acts in response to these. Because God revealed himself on the field of human history, his actions can be tested and investigated. Because he chose to come at a certain time, in a certain place, Christians are interested in that time and place. God does not hide; he wills to reveal. Incarnation shields Christianity against gradually disappearing into the mix of pagan religions, where everyone can construct a god in his or her own image.

Furthermore, a proper emphasis on incarnation prevents the Christian faith from becoming indifferent to the present world. Incarnation teaches that God desires to engage his creation. He sent his Son into the world to reveal to all humans what life in God’s kingdom looks like. God’s eager participation in human life through the birth of Jesus, as announced to a group of humble shepherds near the town of Bethlehem, generates a charge for the faithful to be involved in the transformation of this world. The incarnation calls followers of Jesus to live lives that actively proclaim that God’s love is participatory love (Heb. 2:18; 4:15).

Incarnation and God’s Being

At the heart of the biblical teaching about incarnation stands a statement about the very being of Christ. The story of the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit, causing her to give birth to “the Son of the Most High,” negates any notion that Jesus was merely an extraordinarily godly person, or prophet, whom God adopted. Rather, he was concurrently 100 percent God and 100 percent human—not “just” human, not “just” God, nor 50 percent of each.

The two natures of Christ present a rational difficulty for finite minds. In terms of function, one way to think about this may be to consider everything that Jesus said, did, and thought as an expression of who God is. Or one may assert that everything Jesus said, did, and thought was exactly what God would have said, done, and thought. The struggle of both language and comprehension at this point is to find ways of expressing how duality of form and function can concur with equality of being. Everything about Jesus is an exact expression of God, yet Jesus is not the Father.

The struggle to understand the meaning and significance of the incarnation has changed over time. Opposite the early Christians, who knew Jesus as a human being and therefore struggled to comprehend his divinity, modern Christians struggle with the significance of Jesus’ humanity. Since Jesus is the object of Christian worship and the content of hymns and praise choruses, his divinity receives most of the focus. This endangers the delicate balance, or tension, revealed in the biblical teaching on incarnation. Jesus must be 100 percent God to be the true Savior, not just someone who can point to a saving God. Concurrently he must be 100 percent human to be fully acquainted with human experience and misery.

Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus: Preexistence and Historical Existence

The NT describes the process, or method, of the incarnation as virginal conception. God’s Spirit overshadowed a young Jewish virgin, Mary, who then gave birth to Jesus. Although incarnation itself does not require such a method (God could have chosen a different method to bring Jesus to earth, as with the first Adam), Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts powerfully portray how God connected eternity to history.

Christ’s eternal nature is attested throughout the NT and belongs indisputably to the very core of Christian theology and understanding. John’s Gospel portrays this robustly through his delineation of Jesus’ existence before his historical birth in Bethlehem (John 1:1–14). Given this, it proves difficult to imagine a more “natural” link between Christ’s preexistence and his historical existence than we find in Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts. The virginal conception joins the preexistent (eternal) nature of Christ to his historical (temporal) existence in a way that preserves both natures as coexistent. Without the virginal conception, there must have been a point of adoption, a specific historical time, or situation, where Jesus became “Son of God.” The problem with any adoption theory is that it ultimately makes Jesus 100 percent human and 0 percent God. Adoption does not change being. The Gospel accounts of incarnation elucidate Jesus’ being. He is not just like God in what he does; he is 100 percent like God in who he is.

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.”

Judgment Day in the Bible

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

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

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

Justification and Judgment

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

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

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

Justification is an important topic because of its relationship to Christian salvation and sanctification. The word “justification” occurs only five times in the Bible (NIV), but related words comprise significant themes in both Testaments. Part of the difficulty in the exposition of “justification” is English terminology. English has two word groups that express the same conceptual range for single word groups in Hebrew and Greek. So in addition to words related to justification, such as “justly,” “just,” and the very important verb “to justify,” no discussion can avoid the terms “righteous” and “righteousness.” Care must also be exercised in allowing the biblical texts to determine word meaning, since both “justice” and “righteousness” terminology can have contemporary connotations foreign to the biblical texts.

Justification is often related to a legal setting in both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, with its judge, defendant, evidence, criteria for evaluating the evidence, verdicts, and the implications of verdicts. This is a good word picture for justification and is used in the Bible itself. As long as the legal picture is extended to everyday affairs, moral and ethical concerns, and different criteria for evidence evaluation, it is a fine starting point for understanding the doctrine of justification.

Common and Extraordinary Justification

The salvific importance of justification has greatly shaped the exposition that follows. Justification has been somewhat awkwardly divided into common and extraordinary justification, with the latter bearing a significant relationship to the doctrine of salvation. The former is discussed only briefly in OT and NT paragraphs. In common justification, a person’s works or deeds are judged according to a standard of righteousness. Righteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “righteous.” Unrighteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “unrighteous.” Extraordinary justification occurs when an unrighteous person or deed is judged and given the verdict “righteous” by some supernatural intervention.

Common justification in the OT may be described in various contexts: (1) in comparative or relative righteousness between humans (e.g., Gen. 38:26; Ezek. 16:51–52); (2) in specific or concrete situations with God as judge (e.g., 2 Chron. 6:23: “Judge between your servants, condemning the guilty and bringing down on their heads what they have done, and vindicating the innocent by treating them in accordance with their innocence”; (3) in specific or concrete situations with a human as judge (e.g., Deut. 25:1: “When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty”); (4) in giving justice (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:4; cf. Ps. 82:3); (5) in proving correct or right (e.g., Ps. 51:4; Isa. 43:9).

Extraordinary justification is much rarer in the OT. A possible example is Dan. 8:14, where in a vision the sanctuary is desecrated and after a time “will be reconsecrated” or, in other terms, “will be justified holy.” It seems quite unusual that the unholy “is justified” as holy. In Isa. 45:25 we find the promise that “in the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified” (ESV). Another verse declares that Yahweh’s “righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11). The need for extraordinary justification and the deficiency of ordinary justification is clear in Ps. 143:1–2: “Lord, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you” (cf. Job 4:17; 25:4). The last phrase might be translated “no person will be justified before you” and is cited by the apostle Paul in Gal. 2:16 (cf. Rom. 3:20).

In the NT, there are fewer references to common justification than in the OT and a much greater development of extraordinary justification, predominantly in the Pauline letters (for similar concepts in different terms, see, e.g., “kingdom of God” in the Synoptic Gospels or “eternal life” in the Gospel of John). Common justification in the NT may be described in various contexts: (1) in a specific situation with a human or God as judge and a person’s behavior as the object of judgment (e.g., Luke 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:3–4; perhaps Luke 10:29; 18:9–14); (2) when “wisdom is proved right,” meaning vindicated by the results (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35); (3) in the release from demands no longer binding (Rom. 6:7; cf. 1 Cor. 6:1); (4) in being proved morally right in fullness (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. Rom. 3:4).

Paul and Justification

Extraordinary justification in the NT is characteristic of the apostle Paul. Luke’s report of Paul’s synagogue sermon in Pisidian Antioch concludes with a brief overview of extraordinary justification (Acts 13:38–39). Paul proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through Jesus. Every person trusting in Jesus is being justified “from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (NKJV). The forgiveness of sins leads to the verdict “innocent” even though sinners apart from Christ are guilty before God of their unrighteous deeds.

In Gal. 2:16 the verb “justify” is used three times: (1) “a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”; (2) “we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law”; (3) “by the works of the law no one will be justified.” The statements may be paraphrased in the active voice (expressing the implied subject) as in the following: (1) God is justifying a person not by works of Mosaic law, but by trust in Jesus Christ; (2) God justified us by trust in Christ, not by works of Mosaic law; (3) God will justify no person by works of Mosaic law. In Gal. 2:16, God is the subject, the agent who justifies (cf. 3:8; Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33). The basis of justification is faith in Christ, not works of the Mosaic law. The meaning of the verb “justify” may be discerned from the context. This justification is related to the gospel (e.g., Gal. 2:14) and to receiving the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14), and the verdict of “righteous” for the person trusting in Jesus (Gal. 2:21; cf. 3:6, 11; 5:5; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Justification and righteousness are important themes in Paul’s letter to the Romans. At the beginning of the letter, Paul declares that he is not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to all who believe. In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith (Rom. 1:16–17). Paul argues in Rom. 1:18–3:20, a section abounding with righteousness language, that all humanity, Gentile and Jew, is under the power of sin (3:10), that no one is righteous (e.g., 3:10–18). All are subject to condemnation (i.e., the declaration of “guilty” and “unrighteous” [cf. 5:16]) rather than justification (i.e., the declaration of “innocent” and “righteous”). No human will be justified before God by works of the law; the law provides knowledge of sin (3:20).

The state resulting from this unrighteousness and sin is God’s wrath (e.g., Rom. 1:18). It is into this situation, this sad state of affairs where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that the righteousness of God, God’s saving activity long anticipated in the OT, is revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (3:21; 10:3). This righteousness is from God (3:22), a righteousness not related to human fulfillment of Mosaic law or righteousness of one’s own (Rom. 3:21; 9:31–32; 10:4; Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Eph. 2:8–9). This righteousness comes from God by trust in Christ (Rom. 3:22; 5:1; 9:30; 10:10; Phil. 3:9). By trust in Christ, God justifies each human in his freely given grace, whereby the human is redeemed from unrighteousness and sin (Rom. 3:24).

The death of Jesus is the sacrifice of atonement by which forgiveness of sins is accomplished and made effectual in the human when one trusts in Jesus’ sacrifice (Rom. 3:25). This sacrifice demonstrates God’s righteousness (3:26) because he justly judges human sin in Jesus. The one who had no sin of his own became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 5:6, 8; 1 Cor. 15:3). In merciful forbearance, God passes over sins previously committed, delaying the execution of his justice, that he might justify the ungodly person who trusts in Jesus’ person and work (Rom. 3:26; cf. 4:5). This justification is of a different nature than ordinary righteousness on the human level or of the kind that can be obtained by observing the Mosaic law. In this extraordinary justification, God reckons a human innocent of sin and righteous by trust and apart from works of Mosaic law (3:28). Both Jew and Gentile are reckoned righteous under the same condition: trust in Jesus (3:29–30).

Although the revelation of the person and work of Jesus the Messiah was relatively new at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Paul emphasizes in Rom. 4 that this idea of justification by trust and not by works goes back to the forefather of the Jews, Abraham. Quoting Gen. 15:6, Paul demonstrates from Scripture that trust, not works, was the basis of extraordinary justification: Abraham believes God, and it is credited to him as righteousness. God justifies Abraham (i.e., God credits righteousness to Abraham) on the basis of Abraham’s trust in God. Paul also cites most of Ps. 32:1–2, from a Davidic psalm, to further demonstrate the consistency of justification by faith with previous revelation. In this quotation the crediting of righteousness apart from works is related to the forgiveness of transgression, where the verdict of the guilty becomes “innocent.” “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Extraordinary justification of unrighteous sinners leads to the twofold verdict: innocent and righteous.

Titus 3:3–6 expresses the same doctrine of extraordinary justification. Humanity is under sin when Jesus appears. God saves in his mercy through Jesus, not on the basis of righteous human works. This saving activity is equivalent to being justified by Jesus’ grace (3:7).

James and Justification

There are three references to justification in James 2:14–26, which appear at first glance to contradict extraordinary justification as presented by Paul. In support of the claim that faith without deeds is useless (James 2:20), two questions are asked: Was not Abraham considered righteous for what he did, and was not Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did (i.e., justified by works) (2:21, 25)? James 2:24 rephrases this as a proposition: a person is justified by what he or she does, not by faith alone. The context of 2:14–26 demonstrates that although the terms “faith,” “works,” and “justification” are the same as Paul’s, they have different meanings for James. Faith appears in this passage as mere knowledge (2:19), without any implications for living (2:14–18). For Paul, faith is a radical commitment of trust that submits one’s entire life under the lordship of Christ, something much different from the mere belief portrayed as faith by James. Deeds or works in the James passage are the concrete manifestations of what one believes (2:18). Works in the Pauline justification passages are set in opposition to trust in the person and work of the Lord Jesus. Outside of the justification context, Paul is an advocate of works properly related to faith, righteousness, and holiness (e.g., Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:3; cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:1–23; 8:4; 12:1–2). Justification is also different. Pauline justification most commonly relates to the extraordinary justification of declaring unrighteous sinners “innocent” and “righteous” based on trust in Christ. Justification in James has greater ties to common justification, focusing on the righteousness of a specific act at a specific time.

Other Views on Justification

Shortly after the age of the apostles, the doctrine of justification was deemphasized in many circles of church life in favor of a more moralistic system. One group has repeatedly argued for centuries that justification infuses righteousness into the believer, and then the believer must do good works to complete justification. This conception fails to differentiate between sanctification and justification and also misrepresents justification. In justification God declares the believer innocent and righteous, forgiving sin by means of Christ’s sacrifice and imputing Christ’s righteousness to the believer. This is not “legal fiction,” since justification has past, present, and future aspects (Rom. 3:30; 8:30–34; Gal. 2:16; 5:5). Believers have been, are being, and will be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. Recently, some have claimed that justification is related exclusively to the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God without “works of the law,” racial and national identity markers (e.g., circumcision or food laws). Among the weaknesses of this view, the key one is that both Jew and Gentile are in need of extraordinary justification (Rom. 3:9, 19–20, 23–26, 30; 9:30–10:13; Gal. 2:15–3:14).

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

Judgment Day in the Bible

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

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

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

Justification and Judgment

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

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

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

This prayer, found but not named as such in Matt. 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–5 (see also Did. 8.2, which follows the Matthean version), is a version of the Jewish Qaddish prayer revised around the theme of the kingdom of God and is a paradigmatic model of prayer given by Jesus to his followers.

Jesus and Prayer

Prayer was a key element of Jewish piety and devotion to God. It was a large part of meetings in synagogues, annual festivals, worship in the temple, and daily recitals of the words of the law. Jesus is remembered as withdrawing into lonely and desolate places for times of prayer (Mark 1:35; 6:46), most poignantly in the garden of Geth-semane (Mark 14:32–42 pars.). Jesus’ time in the wilderness probably was a time of prayer and fasting as well (Mark 1:12–13 pars.). Besides the Lord’s Prayer, another prayer of Jesus celebrates God’s revelation to the disciples after their short itinerant mission (Matt. 11:25–26 // Luke 10:21).

The evangelist Luke emphasizes Jesus at prayer more than any other Gospel writer. Luke’s Gospel portrays Jesus as praying at his baptism (3:21), prior to his selection of the Twelve (6:12–13), prior to Peter’s confession of him as Messiah (9:18), at his transfiguration (9:28–29), prior to his teaching on the Lord’s Prayer (11:1), for Peter (22:32), and twice while on the cross (23:34, 46). Jesus also taught much about prayer, concerning how his disciples are or are not to pray and how to show genuine devotion in the kingdom community without hypocrisy (Mark 11:24–25; Matt. 5:44 // Luke 6:28; Matt. 6:5–8; Luke 11:5–13; 18:1–14; 21:36).

In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ prayers underscore the unique nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son (John 11:41–42; 12:27–28). Jesus’ high priestly prayer for the disciples concerns their preservation and the role of the Holy Spirit in their lives (17:1–26). A distinctive characteristic of Jesus’ prayers is that God is addressed by the Aramaic word abba (“father”), and this became common in early Christian worship (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

The Lord’s Prayer: Matthew and Luke

The Lord’s Prayer takes distinct forms in Matthew and in Luke (see table 2). The differences in the two prayers might be attributable to Jesus teaching two different versions. More likely, Matthew and Luke both knew the prayer from a common source (written or oral), and Matthew’s version is a more liturgical elaboration of Luke’s shorter and more “original” version. Matters are complicated somewhat by the fact that later Christian scribes had a propensity for harmonizing the two prayers and sometimes amended them in their respective manuscripts. Both prayers agree that (1) God is the Holy Father, (2) the kingdom is yet to come in its fullness, (3) followers of Jesus depend on God for their daily provisions, (4) followers of Jesus depend on God for forgiveness, (5) which is reciprocated in the forgiveness of others, and include (6) the supplication that God not let them fall into the final tribulation.

Table 2. The Lord’s Prayer in Matthew and Luke

Matthew 6:9-13….Luke 11:2-4

Our Father in heaven,….Father,

hallowed be your name,….hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,….your kingdom come.

your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven….

Give us today our daily bread….Give us each day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,….Forgive us our sins,

as we also have forgiven our debtors….for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.

And lead us not into temptation,….And lead us not into temptation.

But deliver us from the evil one….

For your is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. [added in some later manuscripts; see NIV mg.]….

The Lord’s Prayer: The Petitions

The prayer can be broken up into a number of petitions. First is the petition addressed to God as Father and self-sanctifier. God is invoked as Father, and his name represents both his character as a loving father and his authority as the master over all creation. The prayer is theocentric, and it reads literally “let your name be sanctified,” which is a plea that God’s holiness will become more and more evident. The Lord’s Prayer is not some kind of “I want” list, but rather a burst of praise expressing the hope that God’s sheer goodness and Godness will be acknowledged by all.

The second petition is for God to finally establish his kingdom. The “kingdom of God” is more akin to God’s reign, rule, or government. It is referred to rarely in the OT (e.g., Dan. 2:44; Obad. 21); much more prominent is the theme of God as “king.” In many of the psalms God already is king of Israel and the nations (e.g., Pss. 93–99), and yet the prophets could look forward to the day when Yahweh would again show himself to be king precisely through his deliverance of Israel, which would be the ultimate expression of the kingly power (e.g., Isa. 52:7; Zech. 14:9). The prayer for the coming of the kingdom of God is a prayer for God to establish his reign or rule in its final and full manifestation on earth. Although the kingdom was partially present during Jesus’ ministry by virtue of his exorcisms and healings (e.g., Mark 1:15; Luke 11:20), it still awaits its final consummation. Matthew’s version has “on earth as it is in heaven” and may indicate a millennial view of the kingdom as supplanting earthly kingdoms, resulting in the transformation of the present age. The petition does not promote escapism from the world but rather points toward its eventual redemption and transformation by the glorious power of heaven becoming a reality upon the earth.

Third is the petition for daily provision of physical needs. The “daily bread” petition looks to God as the provider and caregiver of his people. Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, Jesus preaches dependence on God as a means of escaping the worry and lure of wealth and money (Matt. 6:25–33 // Luke 12:22–34). Bread was a powerful symbol for sustenance and life (e.g., Prov. 22:9; Lam. 2:12; John 6:35, 48; Sir. 29:21; 34:25). The petition assumes that God is interested in the most mundane aspects of human existence, and that he gives what is needed, not always what is wanted. God sustains his people in their hour of need as proof of his fatherly care and compassion.

Fourth is the petition for divine forgiveness in coordination with mutual forgiveness among the community of Jesus’ followers. The prayer does not ask God to forgive persons who then in turn forgive others; rather, in reverse, the prayer implies that God forgives in the same way that humans forgive each other (Matthew) or on the basis of humans forgiving each other (Luke). The role of mutual forgiveness within the new covenant community is spelled out clearly by Paul in Colossians: “Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Col. 3:13).

Fifth is the petition to be spared eschatological tribulation and the malevolence of Satan. The word peirasmos can mean “testing,” “trial,” “temptation,” or even “tribulation” or “ordeal.” The prayer could constitute a plea for help in the face of personal trials and struggles in the believer’s life and in the journey of discipleship (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:13; James 1:2), or it could denote a request to be kept from the eschatological ordeal that will precede the final and full establishment of the kingdom of God (e.g., Mark 14:36, 38; Rev. 3:10). Importantly, what is feared in this prayer is not experiencing the peirasmos but rather succumbing to it—the fear of failure. In addition, the prayer asks to be delivered from ho ponēros, “evil,” or (more likely) “the evil one” (cf. Matt. 5:39)—that is, the devil or Satan. God tests his people to strengthen them and prove their faithfulness, while Satan tempts people to subdue and destroy them. This prayer acknowledges the fragility and helplessness of the human state in the face of human, spiritual, and cosmic evil. The prayer seeks liberation from evil in the coming reign of God’s eschatological kingdom.

The Lord’s Prayer: The Theology

The theological framework, ethical exhortation, and social dynamics created or presupposed by the prayer are as follows.

First, God is the Father of the followers of Jesus. This is axiomatic in the Gospels and is repeated by the Christian prayer that addresses God the Father as “Abba” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

Second, an overarching importance is attached to the kingdom of God as the context in which all prayer is prayed. The tension of the prayer—the very fact of needs and the threat of continuing perils—exists only because God’s plan to restore Israel and renew creation has not yet been put into full effect. God’s kingdom has broken into the world through the work of the Son of God and the giving of the Holy Spirit, and yet it still awaits a final consummation, when God is “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) and finally repossesses the world for himself. The prayer presupposes the “now” and the “not yet” of God’s saving action and balances prayers of triumph and lament in light of current temptations and the coming victory of God.

Third, in this prayer salvation not only is spiritual (understood as going to heaven when one dies) but also involves the physical well-being of a person and healthy relationships within the believing community. Just as God is concerned with physical human needs, so should humans be with their fellow humans. If human beings forgive, then God also forgives them. Human relations are to mirror the values of heaven and the vision of the kingdom.

Fourth, the world order currently exists in partial subjugation to evil powers opposed to God’s rule, which is simply part of the dire situation of “this age.” The prayer presupposes an apocalyptic worldview characterized by dualism (God/Satan, good/evil, present/future, etc.), the necessity of encountering and persevering against evil, and divine intervention to put the world order right and replace it with the kingdom of God.

Fifth, discipleship involves a variety of traits and characteristics. This prayer depicts the disciple as trusting and as exhibiting faith in God’s purpose and plan. The prayer presumes that disciples cling to God in dependence upon him in their day-to-day need. The prayer assumes that disciples try to imitate God in reflecting goodness, love, holiness, and peace in their respective communities. The prayer also admonishes endurance in the face of trials and persistence (not repetitiveness) in the discipline of prayer.

Sixth, although the prayer does not have an explicit Christology, one can be found implicitly. It seems implied that Jesus is a mediator between the Father and the disciples, and that he possesses an important role in the final manifestation of the kingdom. It is, after all, the disciples of Jesus who are promised a special place in the kingdom and a special relationship with the God of Israel.

Summary

The Lord’s Prayer has remained a common thread in the devotional life of followers of Jesus for two millennia because it is simple, memorable, poignant, and yet profound. It is not the prayer of an elite few; it belongs to all who cry out to God as Father and see the way to God in Jesus Christ, the exalted Lord and Messiah of Israel. As teachings of Jesus hold immeasurable significance for the life, faith, praxis, and service of his followers, this prayer encapsulates a motif of Jesus’ own mission: God as king and the love of God for his own people.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

John and the author of Hebrews call Jesus Christ the “only begotten,” as traditionally translated (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; Heb. 11:17 KJV). The epithet, which is a single word in Greek (monogenēs), signifies being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, and therefore, as we find in more recent translations, it may also be translated “one and only Son” (NIV) or “only son” (NRSV). Although the Bible claims that God has many human sons and daughters, in various senses he has but one “only begotten” Son, who must also be distinguished from the angels, who are also identified as sons of God (Heb. 1:1–14; see also Gen. 6:2, 4).

The author of Hebrews and Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, present Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son” (Heb. 11:17 KJV; Josephus, Ant. 1.222). But Abraham has two sons, the other one being Ishmael, as the biblical narrative and Paul make clear (Gen. 16:11–16; Gal. 4:22). The difference is that Isaac was the only begotten between Abraham and his wife, Sarah, and the one for whom God decided to perpetuate the covenant that he originally made with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:1–6; 17:19). Isaac is presented by early Christians as a type of Christ, and for Paul, he is a type of all the children of the new covenant (Gal. 4:21–31). Nevertheless, through Jesus’ fulfillment of God’s covenant obligations, many, including the descendants of Ishmael, will be called “sons of God” (Gen. 17:20; Hos. 1:10, cited in Rom. 9:26; Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26; 4:6).

Without compromising the uniqueness of his position, the “one and only” Son is happy to share his status before God the Father through faith, by grace, which brings the believer into union with his body, the church (Gal. 2:19–20; Eph. 2:1–10; Heb. 2:10). The conviction that Christ cannot be compared to human children or angels, parts of God’s creation, contributed to the belief of comparing Christ only with God, the uncreated.

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

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

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

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

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

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

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

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

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

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

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

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

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

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

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

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

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

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

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

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

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

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

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

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

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

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

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

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

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

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

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

In the KJV, words that mean “alive,” “to make alive,” or “to revive” (e.g., Num. 16:30; Ps. 71:20; John 5:21; Acts 10:42; Rom. 8:11; 2 Tim. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:5).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

The term “salvation” is the broadest one used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.

Old Testament

In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).

Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2 Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1 Sam. 17:1–58).

But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

New Testament

As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2 Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2 Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins (see below).

Components

In several passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus 3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term for the totality of what God has done for his people in and through Christ. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that it takes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration” refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person from spiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7; Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of God declaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis of Christ’s sacrificial death and life of perfect obedience (Rom. 3:21–5:12; Gal. 2:14–21). “Atonement” describes Christ’s payment for sin and resulting forgiveness (Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). “Redemption” captures the reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of their slavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7; 5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardened rebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2 Cor. 5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extends that reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom he reconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom. 8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” God sets his people apart for his special purposes and progressively changes them into the image of Christ (1 Cor. 1:30 ESV, NRSV, NASB; cf. Rom. 8:29). The final component is “glorification,” when God brings to completion the work of salvation by granting his people resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death, and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).

Prepositions of Salvation

Another way that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through the various prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in the following list are among the more significant.

From. Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is not surprising that Scripture describes that from which believers are saved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all my transgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible only through Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus on the cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death of Christ believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10). At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus saved people from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result of these and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the day of Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from this corrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimony of Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and its consequences.

To/into. Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/into certain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves, believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through the cross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13). Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace into which believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’s work on their behalf (John 14:27).

By. Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to express the instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves” (1 Sam. 17:47). In the broadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by the grace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can also express the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israel was that it was saved from its enemies by God (Deut. 33:29; Isa. 45:17). The same thing is meant when Scripture speaks of God saving his people by his right hand (Ps. 17:7) or his name (Ps. 54:1).

Through. The consistent testimony of the Bible is that salvation comes through faith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have been justified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal. 3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “but that which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). The remarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have been accomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).

In. Especially in Paul’s writings the various components of salvation (see above) are modified with the phrase “in Christ” or “in him.” Believers are chosen (Eph. 1:4), redeemed (Eph. 1:7), justified (Gal. 2:17), and sanctified (1 Cor. 1:2) in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

With. Many of the components of salvation that believers experience are said to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4–11; Gal. 2:20). With Christ, believers have been made alive, raised up, and seated in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:13). Because of their union with Christ, believers share in his inheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1 Pet. 1:4). Even the very life of the believer is said to be currently “hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).

Tenses of Salvation

The Bible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses. Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believers that “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he can also speak of himself and other believers as those “who are being saved” (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15), pointing to a process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuring believers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2), he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’s wrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).

The use of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet” dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. But the final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvation must still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a new heaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).

Conclusion

Without a proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of its rebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makes little sense. Because sin is humanity’s greatest problem, salvation is humanity’s greatest need. Given the breadth, width, and depth of what God has done to save his people from their sins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrews asks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:3).

Sanctification and Holiness

In the biblical sense, the word “sanctification” relates directly to the Hebrew and Greek words for “holy” (qadosh and hagios respectively). One may even argue that “holy-fication” would be preferable to “sanctification” to underscore the intertwined nature of these terms. In Scripture, English terms such as “holy”/“holiness,” “consecrate”/“consecration,” and “sanctify”/“sanc-ti-fi-cation”/“saints” express cognates of qadosh/hagios.

Despite continued emphasis by many writers that “holy” speaks to separation and that “to be holy” means “to be set apart,” the biblical terms are relational and speak primarily of belonging. “To be holy” (sanctified) means “to belong to God”; separation follows only as the exclusivity of this relationship demands it.

Qadosh is God’s adjective. God’s character defines the meaning of “holy,” not the other way around. Holy, then, cannot be reduced to religious notions of purity (and/or exclusivity) but rather must be understood in light of the full expression of God’s character and will. While other adjectives such as “great,” “majestic,” and “powerful” can also describe humans, God exclusively determines the meaning of the adjective qadosh (hagios). “Holy” has no meaning apart from God. Humans (and things) become holy only as they belong to God. For example, an ordinary table dedicated to God becomes a holy table. The people belonging to God are a holy people. Different from other spirits, the Holy Spirit belongs to God and expresses his presence exclusively (cf. Isa. 6:3; 52:1).

It follows that holiness and divine presence are tightly interwoven. God opens the door into his presence, enabling sanctification (John 17:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; Heb. 10:10), and he calls for his people not to violate his relational presence (2 Cor. 7:1; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 12:14). Sanctification, then, is not as much an intrinsic “either/or” quality (granted or not granted) as it is a relational “more or less” quality based on God’s dynamic presence. Put differently, the biblical perspective on holiness resists reduction to a mere “holy versus profane” dichotomy and cannot be reduced to a simple declaration (granted!) or to a specific list of godly requirements (dos and don’ts).

Old Testament

The gradation of the OT priesthood into levels of holiness that enabled entrance and service in weaker or stronger intensities of God’s presence underscores further this dynamic quality of holiness. Although all the people of Israel were holy (belonging to God), the priests enjoyed a higher degree of holiness than the ordinary Israelite. Within the ranks of the priests, the high priest went through stricter rituals of consecration (Exod. 29:1–8, 20–21; Lev. 8:7–24; 21:13–15), since he alone could minister in the most intensive presence of God (Lev. 16:1–17). Less holy were those of the Aaronic lineage born with physical defects. Although sufficiently holy to eat from the most holy offerings, they could not serve at the altar (Lev. 21:16–23).

Average Israelites possessed a lower level of holiness than Levites and priests but could, as individuals, acquire greater levels of holiness through obedience (Lev. 11:44–45; Num. 15:40–41). Moreover, special vows, like that of the Nazirite, enhanced the average Israelite’s quality as holy. The Nazirite vow (Num. 6:1–21) did not transfer priestly status to any person, but it did elevate one’s holiness to a comparable level during the period of dedication.

This dynamic connection between divine presence and sanctification becomes even more evident in the prophets. They were “holy men” because they were endowed with the divine spirit, and as the level of this endowment varied from prophet to prophet, so did their effectiveness as God’s messengers. False prophets still carried the name, but their lack of devotion to Israel’s God caused inaccuracy in their message (e.g., Jer. 6:13–14).

New Testament

This dynamic relationship between divine presence and holiness translates directly to the NT use of hagiasmos (and cognates). Although the Gospels rarely use “sanctification” vocabulary, Jesus’ ongoing polemic against the Pharisees, who had turned their piety (holiness) into a question of mere conspicuous behavior, makes the same point. John’s correlation of Jesus’ sanctification as God’s Son with the disciples’ experience of the Spirit’s empowerment (John 10:34–38; 17:17–19) indicates the same. Sanctification could not be separated from purpose and sending (20:21–23) and could not be reduced to a process of learning specified “Christian” behaviors. This, again, follows the pattern outlined in Acts; it was the outpouring of the Spirit that enabled the disciples to live the Christian life, which required the dynamic, creative power of God’s presence (Acts 1:8; 2:1–21).

Paul’s conversion exemplifies this tight connection between divine presence and sanctification (holiness). Not attaining the experience of God that he expected from keeping the law, Paul found the law-promised access to God in Christ. This turned him into a theologian of the Spirit who focused on the relational quality of God’s presence. In Paul’s vernacular “divine presence,” as expressed through the language of holiness or sanctification, stems from the relational work of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, sanctification centers on deepening the relationship between God and the Spirit-filled Christian. Sanctification as a process of “learning” ethics surfaces only as a derivative; ethics is a by-product of divine presence, not vice versa. The antidote to the vices of the flesh (Gal. 5:18–21) is not a contrasting list of virtues of the Spirit but rather a fruit, the product or result, of living in God’s presence (Gal. 5:22–23).

For Paul, Spirit possession was synonymous with being a Christian (Rom. 8:9). His concern involved the intensity of the Spirit’s presence. The Spirit could be grieved and his presence quenched—a devastating situation to the Christian’s power and sanctity (Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19).

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).

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).

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yet they also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these three persons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesus prays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heaven concerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send the Spirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will do what Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). The challenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate a doctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of which surfaces in both Testaments.

Old Testament

In the OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicit level. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8), Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as “Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son” (Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where God declares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NT evidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father” certainly appears in the OT.

Messianic texts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “child is born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of “Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowed in Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipates the appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt. 3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh says to David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly, the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh while implying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes that case, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spirit of God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1 Sam. 16:14 a contrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” that leaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” that torments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God would not take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spirit can be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy (Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek. 36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable from one to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

New Testament

The NT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” often because of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appears several times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9, 14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’ reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which he identifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10; and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (also 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in 1 Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (see also 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2–3; in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood. . . . Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “God the Father” is clear.

Biblical texts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for the second claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say as much, but one can take this case further. In context, John’s prologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims that he was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, as he declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ in John 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages that identify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, as Peter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They call out, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11 puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider “equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and the one by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19 states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlights the deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and the Lamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

The NT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personality of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Spirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speak against the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’s Gospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we also see in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke 1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18, 38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the Holy Spirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ (5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor and teacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’s instructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance of sonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). This person even knows the very thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three members of the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, the Spirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

The evidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons are called “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command in their relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of the cross to the church. This “functional subordination” of the Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from the analogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son” would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though they share a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share a common humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that they relate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22) Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by my Father” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authority to the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season) knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifies the Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please his heavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares in John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Son upon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son is said to have “offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated by theologians whether this functional subordination relates only to the period of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is an eternal subordination.

The Spirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father and the Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross and empower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends the Spirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveys what he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John 16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Trinitarian Heresies

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while being distinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these two persons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement our deliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity will respect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustrate them with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms of polytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came from Marcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father of Jesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves us with more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism and subordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons of the Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God. One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond the functionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentially subordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into this latter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but not the Creator God.

These early heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of the Trinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coined precise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so that God’s “threeness” and “oneness” are preserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the Christian God and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the Holy Spirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk. homoiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial” (Gk. homoousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in so doing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spirit was created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea also rejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promoted by endowing him with supernatural powers.

Each of these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism of Islam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claims that constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians will remember that tensions and paradoxes are not automatic contradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expressly demonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, and Christianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in this case. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, and quite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On the positive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of the church because it affects all the others, especially the entire work of redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if he is not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as our Lord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in that case, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us of what Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannot speak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives us the word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune, and sinners need him to be so.

Refers to the seventh year, wherein the law was read at the Feast of Tabernacles and debts were canceled (Deut. 15:1–9; 31:10–13). Jubilee was another year of release because slaves were set free and property that had been sold reverted to its original owner (Lev. 25:25–33, 54; 27:24). The NT uses language reminiscent of the year of release and Jubilee to speak about Jesus’ redemptive work (Rom. 6:17–23; 8:1–4; Col. 2:13–14; Heb. 2:14–15).