God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all the inhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark” (Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14–16). Apart from the Genesis flood narrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Bible where this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coating of pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people from drowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht), but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder, sail, or any navigational aid.

Noah was told to make it of “gopher wood” (Heb. goper), which the early Jewish Aramaic translations (Targumim) identified as cedar (NIV, NRSV, NET: “cypress wood”). The Hebrew word goper occurs only here in the Bible, but the Akkadian equivalent (kupru) is found at a similar point in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was, then, the right kind of wood for a boat. The ark was to have “rooms”—that is, cubicles (lit., “nests”)—for the different animals to be housed in and kept apart from other animals.

After the general description of the ark (Gen. 6:14), details were provided by God on how to build it (6:15). Its length (300 cubits), width (50 cubits), and height (30 cubits) were specified. “Cubit” literally means “forearm” (the distance from elbow to tip of middle finger), so the ark was approximately 450 feet (140 meters) long, 75 feet (23 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.5 meters) high (see NIV mg.). We cannot be exactly sure if “roof” (6:16) is the correct translation of the Hebrew word tsohar, which may refer to a hatchway or skylight (Vulg.: fenestra [“window”]; note the NIV 1984 mg.: “Make an opening for light”). Another possibility is “pitched roof.” The usual Hebrew word, gag, is not used because that refers to a flat roof (see Josh. 2:6, 8; 2 Sam. 11:2). The instruction to “finish it to a cubit above” (RSV) refers to the pitch of the roof or its overhang. The “window” (Heb. khallon) that Noah opens in Gen. 8:6 is probably to be equated with this skylight in the roof, not a window in the side (since Noah cannot see out). In Gen. 8:13 Noah removes the “covering” (Heb. mikseh) from the ark, so as to see the surface of the earth. (Gen. 5:1-32; Gen. 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen. 8:1-22).

The ark was to have a door in its side, which was closed by God (Gen. 6:16; 7:16). The structure was also to have three decks, which suggests that the ark was viewed as a microcosmos, with its three levels matching sky, earth, and sea. Genesis 6:17 explains why an ark is needed. The destruction will be by means of water, and the ark will carry Noah and his family (eight persons), as well as at least one pair of every living creature. The NT refers to Noah’s construction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20) and his entering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).

The initiatory ritual of Christianity. This rite is of great significance in connecting the individual both to Christ and to the greater community of believers. Baptism carries an equal measure of symbolism and tradition, evoking a connection between OT covenantal circumcision and ritual cleansing and NT regeneration and redemption. It is the visible response to the gospel, reflecting the internal response to the gospel: the climactic moment in the journey of reconciliation of the believer with God.

The word “baptism” (Gk. baptisma) carries with it the sense of washing by dipping (Gk. baptizō); the word can also carry the sense of being overtaken or subsumed, or of joining or entering into a new way of life. In either sense, a distinct change in the recipient is envisioned. Through baptism, Christians both demonstrate their desire for and symbolize their understanding of being washed clean of sin; they also proclaim their surrender to and subjugation by Christ. All this intellectual underpinning occurs in what can be a deeply emotional ceremony.

Baptism in the Bible

The immediate precursor of Christian baptism was the baptism of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4 pars.), a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, preparing the hearts of the people for the coming Messiah. But when Jesus himself was baptized by John to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to allow Jesus to identify with sinful humanity, he became the firstfruits of the new covenant. John emphasized that his baptism with water was inferior to the baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire” that Jesus would bring (Matt. 3:11). Jesus’ disciples continued John’s baptism during his earthly ministry (John 4:1–2).

Baptism was immediately important in the early church. Jesus commanded the disciples to “make disciples . . . , baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). The disciples replaced Judas from among those “who have been with us the whole time . . . from John’s baptism” (Acts 1:21–22). Peter’s first sermon proclaims, “Repent and be baptized” (2:38). The apostles baptized new believers in Christ immediately (8:12–13; 8:38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).

For the apostle Paul, baptism represents a participation in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3–4); “In him you were . . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).

Though the NT does not explicitly command baptism (the command in Acts 2:38 is understood to be directed toward a specific group), it assumes that all believers will be baptized (Acts 19:2–3). The expectation of baptism is as good as a command, and Christians should understand baptism as a matter of obedience. Accounts of baptism in Acts are always preceded by reports of belief, and new believers are immediately baptized. Baptism also carries the idea of conveyance: no one self-baptizes; rather, believers baptize others as an initiation into the family of believers.

Baptismal Practices

Historically in the church, the manner of baptism involves the application of water to the recipient by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. These practices vary among Christians, but no one practice has a clear biblical warrant above the others. Paul, however, appeals to symbolism in his discussions of baptism. He describes those baptized “into Christ Jesus” as being “baptized into his death,” “buried with him through baptism into death” that they might be raised to a new life “just as Christ was raised from the dead” (Rom. 6:3–4; see also Col. 2:12). Immersion may be the best vehicle to retain this striking symbolism of Paul.

The timing of baptism has caused controversy within the church. Some churches (especially Baptist) believe that baptism is for those who have made a conscious decision for Christ—believer’s baptism. Baptism is an expression of both the change in one’s life and one’s devotion. With this act, the person unites with the church as well as with Jesus himself. This is a deeply moving experience for the celebrant, one to be remembered forever. The celebrant metaphorically is buried with Christ in order to be raised up with him. Baptism does not of itself convey salvation but rather is an act of obedience, and obedience indicates active affirmation of the gospel.

Some churches (e.g., Reformed, Presbyterian) practice infant baptism (paedobaptism). Baptism is at least partly a covenant act similar to circumcision; by this act the child’s parents announce their own membership in the body of Christ and their desire that the child be considered a member as well. Baptism does not convey salvation, but it does convey a type of grace. Entering early adulthood, the child will be given a chance to affirm his or her faith through confirmation. Obviously, the child will have no conscious memory of the original baptism, but the child will grow from infancy with the knowledge of having been entered conditionally into the church by his or her parents. Infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents that the child must claim later, at which time some church traditions have a ritual of confirmation. The warrant for infant baptism is the passages where a “household” or other unspecified group is baptized (see Acts 2:38; 16:15, 31, 34). Also, Paul seems to relate Christian baptism to OT circumcision (Col. 2:11–12), an event for the child performed at the parents’ request (Lev. 12:3). (See also Infant Baptism)

Advocates of believer’s baptism also see value in the ceremonial incorporation of infants into the church. These churches offer child dedication, a similar ceremony but without the water component.

Another source of debate is the concept of rebaptism. Some churches require that prospective members who were baptized as infants be baptized anew as believing adults. It is claimed that the previous baptism is invalid, since an infant cannot possess the proper faith. For other churches, rebaptism is strictly forbidden as unscriptural.

Notably, while most Christian groups see baptism as fundamental to their fellowship, many groups also make allowances for baptism received in extraordinary ways. For instance, the Catholic Church allows for “baptism by blood” and “baptism by desire,” where in extreme cases baptism is credited though having never been performed. Catholic doctrine also allows for “extraordinary ministers” who may not even be Christians to perform baptism, as long as the intended goal is a valid Christian baptism.

The Function of Baptism

Baptism should not be seen as a saving act; Paul tells a jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” (Acts 16:31). It is later, after the jailer has washed Paul’s and Silas’s wounds, that the family is baptized. Paul does write to Titus about salvation, saying, “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). But here Paul is invoking OT imagery rather than NT baptism, as he nowhere uses these terms to refer to baptism. Peter writes, “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21). It is not the baptism that saves, nor the washing, but rather the working of faith in relationship with God.

It is a shame that baptism has become a source of division in today’s churches. Paul emphasizes that “we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Cor. 12:13). Having been baptized into Jesus Christ should be a unifying element among Christians, not a source of contention.

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denying ourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and live abundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are in pain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement just when others might keep their distance. The compassionate person also turns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed in their character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love in general, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’s pain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.

Compassion Shown by God

The OT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward those who, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. In Exod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they have rebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for their deliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them of his sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy, yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deserved harm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sin and wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’s patience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to their judges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshiped them!” but God later “was moved to compassion when he heard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them” (2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies on Yahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1). In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, who complains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66 dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g., 49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).

The NT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowds who “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick and feeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The same connection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscores this attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is “full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depicts God as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution and trial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with broken sinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps. 145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for his people. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise, and even unrighteous.

Compassion Required by God

Because God loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflicted wounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parents ought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings 3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’s garment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod. 22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, God requires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt. 12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalism and genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we might have expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it is sometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13; Ps. 109:12).

The NT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is a familiar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion toward those who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the “Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is a direct command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given to us by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there is any “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), we must follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves] with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience” (Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility and compassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble” (1 Pet. 3:8).

The Bible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandable reasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. We want always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected by our own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering people are burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a ready excuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior has shown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.

Deceitful cunning, usually employed in taking advantage of others through scheming and underhanded methods (e.g., Exod. 21:14; Pss. 32:2; 34:13; 55:21; 2 Cor. 12:16 KJV; 2 Macc. 12:24; 1 Pet. 2:1 NRSV). Although Nathaniel is not initially impressed with Jesus’ messianic credentials, Jesus nevertheless praises him for his straightforwardness: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile” (John 1:47 KJV [NIV, NRSV: “no deceit”]). The reference to an Israelite may be a pun on the meaning of Jacob’s name, which means “deceiver” (see Gen. 25:26; 27:35–36; cf. Gen. 28:12 with John 1:51). Judas Iscariot is an unfortunate contrast (John 12:6). God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and therefore his word is without guile or “pure” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:1–2; 3:10).

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.

Scope and Uses of the Word “Hope”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope as a Biblical Theme

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and that humans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass while maintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering (Hab. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJV translation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29 NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speak of patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with other virtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11), persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness (Rom. 2:4; 1 Cor. 13:4).

Numerous passages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and show contempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusing to be patient with others even though they themselves have received mercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays his patience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying the world because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward those who are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1 Pet. 3:20).

Just as God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through his Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer, Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both inside and outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14–15) as they wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15; James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must model patience and encourage others with patience (2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2).

(1) The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

His story is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its great wickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah found grace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a large boat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as well as selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed, and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe. From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was the recipient of various directives for the governance of the postdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curious episode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Ham for some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is described only as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22 ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.

Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1 Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2 Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.

(2) One of the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion of their deceased father’s property helped set a precedent for inheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh. 17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad to marry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not pass from tribe to tribe (Num. 36).

God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all the inhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark” (Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14–16). Apart from the Genesis flood narrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Bible where this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coating of pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people from drowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht), but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder, sail, or any navigational aid.

Noah was told to make it of “gopher wood” (Heb. goper), which the early Jewish Aramaic translations (Targumim) identified as cedar (NIV, NRSV, NET: “cypress wood”). The Hebrew word goper occurs only here in the Bible, but the Akkadian equivalent (kupru) is found at a similar point in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was, then, the right kind of wood for a boat. The ark was to have “rooms”—that is, cubicles (lit., “nests”)—for the different animals to be housed in and kept apart from other animals.

After the general description of the ark (Gen. 6:14), details were provided by God on how to build it (6:15). Its length (300 cubits), width (50 cubits), and height (30 cubits) were specified. “Cubit” literally means “forearm” (the distance from elbow to tip of middle finger), so the ark was approximately 450 feet (140 meters) long, 75 feet (23 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.5 meters) high (see NIV mg.). We cannot be exactly sure if “roof” (6:16) is the correct translation of the Hebrew word tsohar, which may refer to a hatchway or skylight (Vulg.: fenestra [“window”]; note the NIV 1984 mg.: “Make an opening for light”). Another possibility is “pitched roof.” The usual Hebrew word, gag, is not used because that refers to a flat roof (see Josh. 2:6, 8; 2 Sam. 11:2). The instruction to “finish it to a cubit above” (RSV) refers to the pitch of the roof or its overhang. The “window” (Heb. khallon) that Noah opens in Gen. 8:6 is probably to be equated with this skylight in the roof, not a window in the side (since Noah cannot see out). In Gen. 8:13 Noah removes the “covering” (Heb. mikseh) from the ark, so as to see the surface of the earth.

The ark was to have a door in its side, which was closed by God (Gen. 6:16; 7:16). The structure was also to have three decks, which suggests that the ark was viewed as a microcosmos, with its three levels matching sky, earth, and sea. Genesis 6:17 explains why an ark is needed. The destruction will be by means of water, and the ark will carry Noah and his family (eight persons), as well as at least one pair of every living creature. The NT refers to Noah’s construction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20) and his entering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).

Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and that humans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass while maintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering (Hab. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJV translation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29 NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speak of patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with other virtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11), persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness (Rom. 2:4; 1 Cor. 13:4).

Numerous passages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and show contempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusing to be patient with others even though they themselves have received mercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays his patience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying the world because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward those who are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1 Pet. 3:20).

Just as God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through his Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer, Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both inside and outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14–15) as they wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15; James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must model patience and encourage others with patience (2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2).

Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and that humans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass while maintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering (Hab. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJV translation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29 NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speak of patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with other virtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11), persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness (Rom. 2:4; 1 Cor. 13:4).

Numerous passages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and show contempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusing to be patient with others even though they themselves have received mercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays his patience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying the world because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward those who are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1 Pet. 3:20).

Just as God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through his Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer, Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both inside and outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14–15) as they wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15; James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must model patience and encourage others with patience (2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

In the KJV, this term is used to describe a kind of verbal abuse, scolding, accusation, or derision (1 Sam. 25:14; 2 Chron. 32:17; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:39; 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Tim. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:9; 2 Pet. 2:11; Jude 9).

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.

According to 1 Pet. 3:18–20 (NIV 1984), Christ “made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago . . . in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.” The identity of the “imprisoned spirits,” or “spirits in prison,” has long puzzled interpreters and is bound up with the larger issue of the nature of Christ’s preaching. Historically, several explanations presuppose that the “spirits in prison” are the souls of dead humans. Theologians have disagreed regarding several issues. Did Christ preach to them while they were still living (in the days of Noah) or after they had died and were in “prison”? If the latter, was this preaching between Christ’s death and resurrection, during the crucifixion, or after the ascension? Did Christ preach to the spirits of all who died prior to the incarnation of Christ, only to the righteous, only to the unrighteous, or even only to the generation that was alive at the time of Noah? Each of these possibilities has its proponents.

Another approach to the problem proceeds from the insight that the word “spirits” (Gk. pneumata) does not usually describe dead humans in the NT, nor does “prison” (Gk. phylakē) describe the abode of the dead. Based on these observations, it has been proposed that the “spirits in prison” are malevolent supernatural beings (nonhuman). This theory finds support, not explicitly in the NT, but in well-attested contemporary Jewish traditions, according to which the flood itself was caused by the malfeasance of such beings (see Gen. 6:1–6; cf. Luke 10:17–20). See also Descent into Hades.

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

The visible and bodily ascent of Jesus from earth to heaven concluding his earthly ministry, which then continued through the promised Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost.

A detailed historical account of the ascension is given only by Luke (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:4–11 [cf. Mark 16:19, in the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel]). The event, however, was anticipated in John’s Gospel (John 6:62; 20:17).

The ascension is frequently implied throughout the NT by reference to the complex of events that began with the death of Jesus and ended with his session at the right hand of God in glory. Paul writes of the divine-human Christ’s ascent to the heavenly realms as the beginning of his supreme cosmic reign in power (Eph. 1:20–23) and as the basis for holy living (Col. 3:1–4; 1 Tim. 3:16). In Hebrews, the ascension is a crucial stage that marks off the completed work of Jesus on earth, in which he offered himself as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin (9:24–26), from his continuing work in heaven as our great high priest, which is described in terms of sympathy (4:14–16) and intercession (7:25). Peter makes the most direct reference to the ascension, explaining that Jesus, who suffered, is resurrected and “has gone into heaven” (1 Pet. 3:22). Therefore, just as Jesus, the righteous sufferer, was vindicated by God, so too will his people who suffer for doing good.

Paul understands the OT as predicting Christ’s ascension (Eph. 4:7–10; cf. Ps. 68:18) and containing incidents that in some way prefigure it (2 Kings 2:11–12).

The ascension is significant for at least three reasons. First, Christ’s death could not have full effect until he entered the heavenly sanctuary. From heaven he acts as advocate and communicates to believers through the Holy Spirit all the gifts and blessings that he died on the cross to gain (Heb. 4:14–16; 1 John 2:1). Second, glorified humanity is now in God’s presence, guaranteeing that we likewise will be raised up with body and soul to share the glory yet to be revealed (John 14:2; 17:24; Eph. 2:4–6). Third, the ascension previews the manner of Christ’s second coming (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ ascension was followed by his enthronement in heaven, where he reigns (1 Cor. 15:25) and from which he will physically return in the same glorified body as judge (Luke 21:27). See also Advent, Second; Second Coming.

The English word “atonement” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”; thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In some ways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliation than our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness” as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity is achieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongs done. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achieved this “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

The need for atonement comes from the separation that has come about between God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there is the understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatures on account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effect reconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’s holiness and justice.

Old Testament

In the OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins were atoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, and an amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrifice was reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given them the blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basic operating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of the blood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer. However, there have been significant scholarly debates regarding whether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understanding of atonement.

The meaning of “to atone.” First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popular suggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease, to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert. Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little or nothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purify the tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impurities that attach to them on account of the community’s sin. This theory, though most probably correct in what it affirms, unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacle and furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mention atonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev. 8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts in Leviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sin for the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning of kapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meanings overlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in some passages, and another one in others.

There has also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying a hand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2). This has traditionally been understood as an identification of the offerer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’s sins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and the argument made instead that it only signifies that the animal does indeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offer it. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seen as complementary to what has traditionally been understood by this gesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when the priest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sin and wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on the goat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm the correctness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thus best seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; it dies in his stead.

The relationship between God and the offerer. Second, granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins, the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on the relationship between God and the offerer. The question here is whether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offering expiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does it propitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does it appease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath is removed? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seems logical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On the other hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possibly be a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there are certainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passages where something like “appease” or “pacify” appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30; Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect of atonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

In conjunction with this last point, it is also important to note that there are a number of places where it is said that God does the kapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8 calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept this atonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 God will “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3 (ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions” (ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord, who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV), God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity. Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for your name’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as “ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egypt for your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will “make atonement” for all the sins that Israel has committed. It may be that in most of these passages “atone” is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However, as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages, the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or is taking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins of the people. It is important to remember God’s declaration in Lev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of the sacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, no matter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that God graciously grants to his covenant people.

That leads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa. 52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my [the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who “took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,” and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB: “guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issues with regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song” (as it is often called), one of them being whether the term translated “guilt offering” should really be thought of along the lines of the guilt offering described in the book of Leviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditional Christian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here a picture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning for the sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on his servant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to be God’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

New Testament

The relationship between the Testaments. When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should be made.

First, God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NT consideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinful and unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is the means of averting this wrath.

Second, salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in Christ Jesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the same time, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who “justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom. 3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless his own justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God is both just and justifier.

Third, as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, so also in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement. It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. If Jesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it is God himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not an unwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing of atonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth, the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately, the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessary atonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayals of Christ’s work of atonement. It has become common of late to refer to the different “images” or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. This is understandable on one level, but on another level there is something misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authors speak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear that they intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christ really is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins, and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placed on the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection to the OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.” The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery. In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective, Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice in the OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the different portrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some of these may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while others perhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a “window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted that the individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in some cases they overlap.

• Ransom. Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransom paid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in these passages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption” in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same word are also translated “redeem” or “redemption” in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used in Rev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased” people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that of slaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slave market. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic” view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for the purchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense of Christ’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom the ransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those who are ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to the law.

• Curse bearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the picture of Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. The language is especially striking because rather than saying that Christ bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.” This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully took into his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penalty bearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayal depicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of our sins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, because Christ has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous and no longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much of the argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it also intersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of this picture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understood by Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “the just for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as well as in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sin for us” so that we might become the “righteousness of God.”

• Propitiation. There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or “atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greek verb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. This is the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrew verb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about the precise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, as to whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”) or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avert wrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of “propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is implied in expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account of our sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although the specific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in those passages where it is said either that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or that his blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover. In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has not traditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though many scholars would argue that it was), at the very least we should recognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use of the Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. The Gospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in the Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account of Jesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion was precisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John 19:14).

• Sacrifice. This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above, but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept in the NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ is portrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers the sacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). He came, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of the sacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, final sacrifice” within that system, “that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Of course, it is not just the death of Christ that secures our redemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection and heavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regard to the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life, his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him to be the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “was raised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it was particularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

Terminology

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

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

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

The Nature of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacraments

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

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

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

Worship

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

Service and Organization

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

The Apostles’ Creed announces that following his death and burial, Jesus “descended into hell.” Is there a biblical basis for such a statement?

This doctrine is drawn from various NT passages, but especially 1 Pet. 3:18–20, which says that Jesus “was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits--—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.” And 1 Pet. 4:6 says, “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead” (cf. Acts 2:25–31; Eph. 4:8–10).

There are various interpretations of these passages. First, some claim that Christ preached to the people of Noah’s day, either through Noah or in a preincarnate state. Second, some assert that Christ descended to Hades after his death and preached to Noah’s contemporaries who had died in the flood. The “spirits” would be the spirits of dead people. A third view is that Christ descended to Hades (or hell) after his death and there proclaimed his victory to the fallen angels (“spirits”). These may have been the “sons of God” of Gen. 6:1–4 (see 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). The intertestamental Jewish book 1 Enoch (second century BC) develops an interpretation of this puzzling Genesis text, telling of angels who had brought evil to the world by marrying women and fathering demons. Before the flood they had been put in prison under the earth. A fourth view is similar to the third but claims that Jesus’ proclamation to these fallen angels took place not during a descent into hell, but at his resurrection and ascension.

This last interpretation is the most likely one. Jesus’ descent to “Hades” (meaning the place of the dead) refers generally to his death, not to an entrance into hell. Jesus’ proclamation was his announcement of victory over sin, Satan, and death at his resurrection and ascension. Peter here is reassuring his readers that Jesus rules, and that his death and resurrection have sealed the fate of all powers, real or not, that evoke fear. Paul says simply that Jesus triumphed over all such powers by the cross (Col. 2:15). Jesus did not go to hell; rather, like every believer, when he died, his spirit went to be with the Father in heaven (Luke 23:43), to remain there until reunited with his body at his resurrection.

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

Head

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clothes and Shoes

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

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

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

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

Prophetic Gestures

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

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

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

One of the sons of Noah, listed last in most lists (Gen. 9:18; 10:1) but also listed as the older brother of Shem (Gen. 10:21; or younger [see NIV mg.]). The third son, Ham, is said to be the youngest (Gen. 9:24). Along with his wife, Japheth was one of eight persons saved on Noah’s ark (1 Pet. 3:20). After Japheth acted nobly with his brother Shem by covering up his sleeping and naked father, Noah gave a blessing to Japheth, asking God to extend his territory and bless his offspring. His name means “widespread” or “God will enlarge.” Japheth had seven sons, and it is suggested that his descendants settled in eastern Europe and northern Asia (Gen. 10:2–5).

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

The Synoptic Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gospel of John

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

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

Pauline Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews and the General Epistles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revelation

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

Conclusion

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

(1) The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

His story is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its great wickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah found grace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a large boat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as well as selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed, and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe. From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was the recipient of various directives for the governance of the postdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curious episode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Ham for some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is described only as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22 ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.

Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1 Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2 Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.

(2) One of the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion of their deceased father’s property helped set a precedent for inheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh. 17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad to marry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not pass from tribe to tribe (Num. 36).

A God-established observance, often given as a remembrance for generations, a memorial, always a commandment or an edict to be carried out, noted because God’s people are a covenant people, a perpetual statement of how God wants his people to relate to him.

Old Testament

In the OT the use of the word “ordinance” to translate certain Hebrew words varies among English translations. Since “ordinance” relates to the law, it is often mentioned with commandments and statutes, without a clear distinction of meaning (Deut. 7:11).

In the OT of the NIV, the word “ordinance” is the translation of these Hebrew words: (1) khuqqah (“statute, decree”), at least twenty-three times in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel; (2) khoq (“action, statute, decree”), twice in Exodus; and (3) mishpat (“judgment, justice”), at least five times in the historical books, Psalms, and Ezekiel.

The Hebrew term khuqqah is used in all but one instance with ’olam to note a “lasting ordinance” in the NIV. This term refers to the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod. 12–13). The oil for the perpetual lampstand is referred to as a lasting ordinance (Exod. 27:21), as are also the directions for the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:31) and the ceremonial cleanliness for the man working with the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19:10). Other, more-specific laws are noted as lasting ordinances. These include, for example, the restriction from wine for the priests (Lev. 10:9), restriction of the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31), and the grain offering (Ezek. 46:14).

The Hebrew term khoq is also used in conjunction with ’olam in Exod. 12:24; 30:21, translated as “lasting ordinance” by the NIV. It notes the Passover as a lasting ordinance and the ritual cleansing of the priests as a lasting ordinance.

The Hebrew term mishpat, often translated “judgment,” is also translated in the NIV as “ordinance.” In these instances it notes edicts such as that of the equal division of spoils (1 Sam. 30:25) and the edicts of David (2 Chron. 8:14). The Levites state that Israel has sinned against God’s mishpatim (Neh. 9:29), and the priests will judge according to God’s ordinances (Ezek. 44:24).

New Testament

In the NT, the KJV (3x) and NASB (1x) translate dikaiōma (“regulation, requirement”) as “ordinance,” and both also once translate diatagē (“that which is commanded”) as “ordinance”; additionally, the KJV translates paradosis (“tradition”) and ktisis (“human authority”) as “ordinance” once each. The ESV, NRSV, KJV, and NASB translate dogma (“ordinance, command”) in Eph. 2:15 as “ordinance.” These terms seem to refer to the edict of God for his people, his commandments that are to be obeyed. The NIV does not translate any noun as “ordinance” in the NT.

Christian Theology

In Christian theology the use of the word “ordinance” is not dissimilar. It denotes a God-ordained observance given as a command for his people to fulfill as a covenant people.

Protestants generally recognize two ordinances in the NT: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist). The common characteristics identifying these relate to their ordination by Christ to picture his work in the life of believers and the church and their participation in him. (See also Sacrament.)

Baptism. The concept of baptism is found in five different Greek words, the nouns baptisma (“plunging, dipping”), baptismos (“washing, cleansing, plunging”), and baptistēs (“baptizer”), and the verbs baptizō (“to plunge, dip, wash”) and baptō (“to dip”). The meanings of these words have been discussed throughout church history, but all of them seem to denote an action of dipping or plunging.

Christian baptism certainly is rooted in the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the apostles. In the book of Acts the disciples simply continue to baptize those who repent, as they had done at the inception of Jesus’ ministry (John 4:2). There is no surprise expressed by the recipients of baptism; the expression seems a natural follow-up to their repentance. The connection to Judaism, however, is unclear. Judaism was saturated with rituals of purification with water and washings. These washings were similar to baptisms. While Jewish washings were perpetual, only the Jewish proselyte baptism was a onetime rite. It is unclear when proselyte baptism started or how it developed. It may already have been in place in the time of Jesus. The Talmud later speaks of it, but it is not mentioned in the OT and seems to be missing from Second Temple literature altogether. Just as there were cleansings in the OT rituals, so too the proselyte baptism was a preparatory cleansing of the proselyte candidate. Yet proselyte baptism before the time of Jesus has little extant evidence. Additionally, John would not seem to look to a ritual for Gentiles.

Others have proposed that John was in continuity with a practice of Qumran. The two were very similar (though the Qumran rite was perpetual). At Qumran, baptismal cleansing and repentance looks to the Messiah (Qumran was an eschatological community). Yet it may be that this, as well as the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the apostles, was derived from (common?) sources not now known.

For John, too, baptism is a sign of repentance and cleansing in preparation. John is the forerunner of the Messiah, and as such his focus is also eschatological. John brings an immediate focus on the Messiah, and he draws the Israelite community together to recognize, receive, listen to, and follow the Messiah. With this as the significance of John’s baptism, it is surprising to find Jesus coming to him for baptism. Although Jesus has no need for cleansing and preparation, he is baptized in solidarity with John’s message and his people. When Jesus is baptized, it apparently marks the inception of the kingdom as the Spirit comes upon him and the Father affirms him. Thereafter, Jesus notes the kingdom as being “at hand” in his presence.

Jesus baptizes at least some of the disciples (John 3:22), though the disciples are noted as those who regularly do the baptizing (John 4:2). No doubt this baptism referenced cleansing and preparation, as the Messiah was present. Apparently, the baptism of Jesus’ disciples subsided, since there is no further reference to it by the four evangelists.

On the day of Pentecost, repentance and baptism with regard to the Messiah are begun by the apostles postresurrection. This is according to the command of Jesus before the ascension to make disciples by way of baptism and instruction (Matt. 28:19–20). This baptism commanded by Jesus is to be done “in the name” of the three persons of the Trinity. The early baptismal creed was “Jesus is Lord,” and it may have included a threefold query of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Postresurrection baptism symbolizes cleansing; the inundation in the water symbolizes this cleansing as effected in the death and resurrection of Christ, “buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4).

Baptism is always assumed of a believer (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3–4; 1 Pet. 3:21). It would have never occurred to the early church to dichotomize salvation and baptism as is often done today. The exception can be seen in Paul’s writings, where he emphasizes the kerygma over the act of baptism (1 Cor. 1:17). For Paul, the watershed is the preaching of the gospel to be received by faith, but he perpetually appeals to the baptism of his readers.

Some have overemphasized baptism by seeing it as the salvific entity. Acts 10:47 applies for Cornelius and his family the permanent reception of the Spirit before baptism. This reception of the Spirit is later likened by Peter to the original gift of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 11:15). Although it would be unwise to infer doctrine from the mere sequence of narrative events, the passage in Acts 10 at least shows the nonnecessity of the sequence of baptism to come into union with Christ. This is enacted by the operation of the Spirit alone.

In every case in the NT, the candidates for baptism are those who have come to repentance, and they are always adults. There is no direct reference to infant baptism. Some in the church have assumed infant baptism in family contexts, thought to be especially effectual in dealing with original sin. But overall, the biblical testimony seems to indicate that baptism is for believers who have repented. Because it is usually NT authority figures who administer baptism, a general consensus arose that only the bishop of the church should administer baptism. Ignatius calls for the bishop only to minister both ordinances. The tradition that baptism be administered by an ordained officer of the church is largely maintained today, though there is no edict in the Scripture.

With regard to mode, the Didache calls for immersion in running water as the preferred method, with still water being the second choice. If water is not available for immersion, then a threefold pouring is allowed. In church history, those who prioritize the symbol of cleansing use sprinkling as the mode. In any event, when anything with regard to mode can be discerned from Scripture, it involves dipping into water (“he went up out of the water” [Matt. 3:16]; “they came up out of the water” [Acts 8:39]). (See also Baptism; Infant Baptism.)

The Lord’s Supper. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is also referred to as the Lord’s Table, Communion, and the Eucharist. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the death of Christ. In the partaking of the bread and the cup there is remembrance of the ground of salvation effected in the sacrifice of the cross. Most evangelical Christians consider the bread and the cup to symbolically represent the body and blood of Christ. Other Christian traditions claim that the bread and the cup are transformed into the real body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation) or that the real body and blood of Christ are present alongside the bread and the cup (consubstantiation).

The narrative of Jesus’ Last Supper is found in Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26. This meal as recorded in the Gospels is the covenant meal celebrated in view of the ratification of the new covenant that would soon be accomplished (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood” [Luke 22:20]). Jesus instituted the supper on the night before the crucifixion. The Last Supper of Jesus with the apostles in the upper room also looks to the past redemption effected in the Passover on that fateful night in Egypt. It looks to the present work of Christ as the covenant meal. It anticipates the messianic meal in the eschaton. Just as the bread and the cup with Jesus in his Last Supper were connected with the Passover meal, so in the early church it was observed with the love feast. The fellowship of the church contained the love feast, with the bread given before or after the meal and the cup following the bread. But by the second century, the bread and the cup took on a more liturgical air, being separated from the love feast.

Much of what we know about the Lord’s Supper comes through discussion of problems in the Corinthian church. The very thing that the Lord’s Supper was to foster—unity around the cross of Jesus Christ—was denied. The exact abuse in Corinth is unknown, but it probably involved the rich oppressing the poor by exclusion or denial of food. The response of the apostle is that if they cannot eat in equal moderation with all socioeconomic strata in the body, they are to eat at home (“Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?” [1 Cor. 11:22]). (See also Last Supper; Lord’s Supper.)

The words “persecute” and “persecution” refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. The terms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer to persecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takes varying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, or execution.

Persecution throughout the Bible. Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and “persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations of the Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos. However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue, follow after,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness or peace (Rom. 9:30; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15; Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2 Sam. 22:38). The Greek words were translated into English as “persecute” or “persecution” when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongful affliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.

In this sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout the Bible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea (Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stone the prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saul hunts David (1 Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays the Gibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1 Sam. 21:1–2). Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1 Kings 18:13). The prophet Uriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated (Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are strongly opposed, suggesting persecution (2 Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6; Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to the lions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jews for holding the laws of God above the king’s commands, indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility is shown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecution described in 1 Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings in Egypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.

Persecution in the New Testament. In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19). Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is tried and executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’ apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen is soon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning (7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men and women from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from the chief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he casts votes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herod executes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts, and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2 Cor. 11:23–25). Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speaking disciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and some disciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Thess. 1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution of Christians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far more severely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4, 41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic, often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred in many regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records of persecution survived haphazardly.

Jesus says that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesus accordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34; cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples to pray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). Both Jesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength in persecution (Acts 14:22; 2 Cor. 12:10).

The words “persecute” and “persecution” refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. The terms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer to persecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takes varying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, or execution.

Persecution throughout the Bible. Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and “persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations of the Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos. However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue, follow after,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness or peace (Rom. 9:30; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15; Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2 Sam. 22:38). The Greek words were translated into English as “persecute” or “persecution” when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongful affliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.

In this sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout the Bible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea (Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stone the prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saul hunts David (1 Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays the Gibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1 Sam. 21:1–2). Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1 Kings 18:13). The prophet Uriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated (Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are strongly opposed, suggesting persecution (2 Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6; Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to the lions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jews for holding the laws of God above the king’s commands, indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility is shown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecution described in 1 Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings in Egypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.

Persecution in the New Testament. In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19). Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is tried and executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’ apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen is soon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning (7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men and women from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from the chief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he casts votes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herod executes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts, and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2 Cor. 11:23–25). Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speaking disciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and some disciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Thess. 1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution of Christians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far more severely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4, 41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic, often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred in many regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records of persecution survived haphazardly.

Jesus says that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesus accordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34; cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples to pray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). Both Jesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength in persecution (Acts 14:22; 2 Cor. 12:10).

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 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 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).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Today, vengeance normally is understood as retaliation for a suffered wrong, an action arising from vindictiveness and antipathy toward its object. Such an understanding runs counter to the biblical concept of vengeance. Indeed, the negative individual vengefulness associated with the term is either unequivocally forbidden or shown to be wrongheaded (Exod. 23:4–5; Lev. 19:18; Ezek. 25:12–16; Jer. 20:10–11; 1 Pet. 3:9). Thus, the term is better understood by considering the Hebrew term naqam (or its synonyms baqash and gemul [Josh. 22:23; 1 Sam. 20:16; 2 Sam. 4:11; Ps. 94:2; Isa. 59:18; Obad. 15]) and the Greek term ekdikēsis. A close study of the biblical terms suggests that vengeance has to do with the administration of justice: the rendition of appropriate sanctions against a violator of established norms, and the provision of justice or vindication to the victimized or oppressed. One recurrent motif in the incidences of God’s vengeance is its function in stopping or recompensing injustice (Isa. 59:14–18). The prerogative of such a solemn task rests with someone with legitimate authority. Such authority is ultimately God’s (Deut. 32:35, 39; cf. Ps. 94:1–3; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:19). Indeed, the subject of four out of every five occurrences of “vengeance” in the Bible is God.

In that capacity, God combines, almost indistinguishably, the roles of a sovereign, supreme judge, and warrior in his execution of vengeance on the errant (Exod. 15:1–7; Ps. 89:6–18; Isa. 51:4–5; 52:10; Jer. 20:12). He sometimes delegates this function to angels (Gen. 18–19; Exod. 12:23; 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23); nations, or national armies (Deut. 28:45–50; Isa. 10:5; Jer. 50:9–15); Israel (Deut. 9:1–5; 7:1; 20:16–17; Josh. 6:17–25; 8:24); kings, political leaders, and judicial officers (Deut. 25:1; Jer. 27:6; Rom. 13:1–4; 1 Pet. 2:13–14); and nonintelligent beings or elements of nature (Exod. 23:28–30; Amos 4:6–11).

God’s vengeance has its moorings in his holiness (Jer. 50:28–29; cf. Deut. 32:4). The violation of his holiness arouses his justice, which demands just retribution for the offense (2 Sam. 12:1–12; Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 31:3–11). Put differently, God’s righteousness is the obverse of his vengeance. One’s experience of either is contingent upon one’s relationship with God. In other words, his vengeance flows from his justice (Ps. 89:31–32; Nah. 1:3). God’s justice is counterbalanced by his love (cf. James 2:13). For that reason, his vengeance on his covenant people is often more corrective than punitive and anticipates their repentance, redemption, and restoration (Isa. 1:24–26; Jer. 3:1–17; 46:28). Ultimately, he forgives his people, whom he disciplines (Pss. 89:19–33; 99:8; Zeph. 3:7; Rom. 5:6–11).

Therefore, there always is a close link between God’s vengeance on the wicked and the salvation of his people (Isa. 34:8; 49:26; 61:1–3; Jer. 51:36). This is why the nations that he uses to punish Israel end up being punished themselves because of their hubris and overreaching attempts to annihilate his covenant people (Isa. 47:1–11; Jer. 46:10; 50–51), their failure to recognize the God who has prospered them, and their opposition to him (Deut. 32:26; Mic. 5:14). Thus, God’s people come to expect or even call for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Ps. 94:1–7; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; Lam. 3:60–66; Hab. 1:2–4). Such expectation is usually futuristic and parallels Israelite hope for the impending “day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:9–11; Jer. 46:10; Luke 21:20–24; 2 Thess. 1:6–8). Thus, the cries of God’s people for his vengeance on their enemies represent the abandonment of personal revenge in favor of God’s acts of justice and vindication—petitions for the rule of God’s law over mere human justice (Pss. 58:11; 79:10; Rev. 6:10).