1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 "Honor your father and mother"--which is the first commandment with a promise-- 3 "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."
4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
The idea of Father’s Day was first proposed by Mrs. John B. Dodd, in 1909. She wanted to honor her father, William Smart, a civil war veteran who raised six children on his own when his wife died at child birth. So the next year at her Methodist church in Washington state, Mrs. Dodd led the first known celebration of Father’s Day honoring the “father’s place in the home and his role in the training of children.”
This religious celebration, however, did not stay religious very long. The associated men’s wear retailers tried to turn the day into a second Christmas. They promoted ties, fishing tackle, shirts, and tobacco, which in that day the fathers wound up paying for in the long run.
A 1920’s greeting card contained this Father’s Day wish: “May you sleep as long as you want in the morning. May you have the newspaper when you want it and as long as you want it. Here’s hoping no one will ask you to drive the car or go to church. Happy Father’s Day.”
Based on those criterion, I guess I’ve never celebrated Father’s Day since I think I’ve been in church every Father’s Day of my life. In fact, I’ve preached few sermons on the importance of fathers for fear that my sons would hold my living to the standard of my preaching. For most of my ministry, I’ve left Father’s Day alone.
Then I ran into this research regarding the impact of fathers on the spiritual life of their children. Here’s what it said: If fathers and mothers both take their child to church there is a 75% chance the child will grow up to be an active church participant as an adult. If fathers take their child to church alone, there is still a 50% chance the child will continue the practice as an adult. If the mother takes the child to church alone the percentage drops to 15%. If parents send their child to church, the odds drop to 9%.
Dads, granddads, step-dads, male mentors—you play a vital role in the spiritual development of the next generation. So today I want to talk about the dynamics of being a dad with the understanding the principles apply to all of us.
I. DADS ARE TO BE HONORABLE
When Moses was trying to bring decency and order to the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, the Lord called him to the top of Mt. Sinai and gave him the Ten Commandments. Whether or not we can post them in public places, these ten rules for living continue to be the foundation for a moral society.
You know them. You shall have no other gods before me. Remember the Sabbath. Do not murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. At the center of this top ten list is the commandment about family. “Honor your father and mother so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” Paul reminds us that it is the first commandment with a promise.
A Sunday school teacher asked her elementary students what they thought the promise meant. One mischievous boy replied “I guess it means I better do what my parents tell me or they are liable to kill me.”
Not quite—the commandment has more to do with Social Security and Medicare than with disobedient minors, although the principle applies to all. When we honor the elderly we rise above the rest of nature and become our true human selves. God expects more of us than he does of cats and dogs.
Gary Smalley says, “Honor is a decision we make to place high value, worth, and importance on another person by viewing that person as a priceless gift, and granting him or her a position in our lives worthy of great respect.”
Viewing people as a priceless gift, approaching people with high respect—such is the essence of honor. One way to receive honor is to be honorable and ask for mercy when we fail to act that way.
The question I would raise on Father’s Day is this. Have we made it difficult for our children to honor us? Has anger kept them at a distance? Has low self-esteem ignored their attempts? Have frozen emotions made us unresponsive? Has our behavior betrayed their trust?
A letter to Billy Graham one day went something like this. “Dear Dr. Graham, I know the Bible says we ought to honor our parents, but how can I honor my father who has disgraced our family by stealing from his company and has now ended up in jail?”
By contrast, I think of Ron Reagan standing in a California sunset saying goodbye to his father—a president who confessed his faith in Christ at age 12 and continued to live in that hope for a lifetime, a man who never hesitated to share his belief in God’s unerring plan and without using religion for political advantage, managed to introduce his own son to Jesus Christ. The best way to be honored is to live honorably. That applies to us all.
When we miss the mark, the next best thing we can do is ask for mercy. Yes, love does mean having to say that you are sorry. Indeed it does. One parent wrote this letter to his son: I seek your forgiveness for all the times I talked when I should have listened, got angry when I should have been patient, acted when I should have waited, feared when I should have been delighted, scolded when I should have encouraged, criticized when I should have complimented, said no when I should have said yes, and said yes when I should have said no...I often tried too hard and demanded too much and mistakenly tried to make you into my image of what I wanted you to be rather than helping you discover and nourish the image that God has in your soul.
Sometimes it’s good to say, “I was wrong; I’m sorry.” Do those words stick in your throat or is it easy for you to ask for grace? Dads and all the rest of us, too, are to be honored.
II. DADS ARE TO BE ENCOURAGERS
Eugene Peterson translates the 4th verse in this Ephesians passage this way: Fathers, do not exasperate your children by coming down hard on them. Take them by the hand and lead them in the way of the Master.
Those contrasts articulated by Dorothy Law Nolte years ago are so true.
If a child lives with criticism — he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility — he learns to fight.
If a child lives with ridicule — he learns to be shy.
If a child lives with shame — he learns to feel guilty.
On the other hand,
If a child lives with tolerance — he learns to be patient.
If a child lives with encouragement — he learns to be confident.
If a child lives with praise — he learns to appreciate.
If a child lives with fairness — he learns to be just.
If a child lives with security — he learns to have faith.
If a child lives with approval — he learns to like himself.
If a child lives with acceptance and friendship he learns to find love in the world.
We become what we experience in the formative days of our lives. And we who are role models and mentors and parents and grandparents are called to be encouragers of the future generation. I know, sometimes that’s hard and it doesn’t come naturally for some of us.
As Garrison Keillor tells it, the town ball club was the Lake Wobegon Schroeders, so named because the starting nine players were brothers, all sons of E.J. Schroeder, the coach. E.J. was always ticked off. If a boy hit a bad pitch, he’d spit and curse and rail at him. If a son hit a home run, E.J. would say, “Your grandma could have put the wood on that one. The wind practically carried it out of the field.”
One day against Freeport, a long, long fly ball was hit toward the centerfield fence. E.J., Jr. went for it and when he realized he couldn’t reach it, he threw his glove 40 feet in the air to snag the ball, then caught both ball and glove as they came down. The crowd roared and even the old man caught himself clapping. But when the kid got back to the dugout his dad said, “I saw that catch once before in Superior, Wisconsin, only it was night and the ball was a lot harder to catch at night than it was in daytime. Somebody else has done better than you have.” It sort of reminds me of what my speech teacher said once upon a time. There are just some people who are born in the objective case. I don’t know if you have found that to be true or not but what I want you to realize today is how powerful your words are and how damaging they can be.
By contrast, Dove award singer Twila Paris credits her parents for giving her a sense of self-worth and confidence. They always answered my question of “Do you think I can do it?” with an “Of course you can.” And they were never too busy doing God’s work to give me attention. Fathers, don’t exasperate your children.
Now let me set this statement in history. Paul was speaking to a Roman world. As a Roman citizen, fathers had complete power and total control. Women and children were part of his property. A new born child was placed at a father’s feet. If he picked the child up it became part of the family and was blessed. If the father turned away, that child was sold to slavery or killed. That is the world into which Paul says, ‘Don’t be like that. You are Christians. You live by a different ethic and a separate standard.’ Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger. Do not aggravate them to death. Do not break the spirit of those committed to your care. Fathers, your words have more power than you imagine. Become an encourager to those who are committed to your care. Do you get it? I hope so. It’s critically important.
III. DADS ARE TO BE STRONG IN THE LORD.
Of course, that applies to the rest of us as well. Verses 10-11 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.
Now I need to tell you something if you haven’t figured it out. We are at war. I don’t mean the war in Iraq. I mean we are engaged in cosmic warfare. No, I don’t like the imagery any more than some of you do. But we must be realistic. If we want to be Christian and raise a Christian family today, we better be ready for a fight. It’s not going to be easy.
Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus, going on before.
We’ve become too sophisticated to put such songs in our hymnals and too pacifist to use such imagery in our pulpits. I agree with that. But Paul didn’t. He says put on the whole armor of God. You better get dressed for battle.
John Elderidge in his book Wake Up says, “Maybe it’s time for us to wake up too.” You do not escape spiritual warfare just because you choose not to believe it exists. The devil has more temptations than an actor has costumes. The reason we love the Chronicles of Narnia, Star Wars, The Matrix, and the Lord of the Rings, is that they are telling us something about our lives that we never hear on the evening news and seldom hear from Sunday pulpits. There’s a war going on and we better realize it. A cosmic conflict between good and evil.
So Morpheus says to Neo in The Matrix—Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain. You feel it. You have felt it your entire life. That there is something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is. But it is there like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. Isn’t it interesting that the secular movies are reminding us of the struggle of humanity?
A college sophomore said to her pastor “Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a Christian and a sophomore at the same time?” You know what the struggle is like. It was voiced by a business man one day sitting in a fishing boat with me. He said, “Howard, you’re out of the pulpit. Let me just ask you a real question. Do you think it’s really worth it to hold on to my Christian ethics in a business world where those who are cheating are getting way ahead of me financially, year after year? Do you think it’s really worth it?”
You know what it’s like. You’ve been there. It’s heard in the lament of parents who have done it all right but their children have turned out all wrong because in their adolescent rebellion they hooked up with the wrong crowd. We’d better wise up, open our eyes and understand that we are at war. We are in a fight for our hearts and we’re in a fight for the souls of those we love the most and it’s going to take all of our power and all of God’s grace to win.
Paul was right. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. What can we do?
We can put on the whole armor of God — the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit. You better be armed when you go out there, it’s tough out there.
We can Stand Firm! Not a single part of the armor is designed to cover your back side. Think about that. So let there be no turning and running. Hang in there. Face the enemy.
We can Stick Together! When the storms of life are raging we can help each other. Never fight a war alone. Keep in the company of those you trust.
We can Pray! Verse 18 says, Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
It’s going to take a family to bring decency and order to our world. Dads, are you doing your part to communicate the faith to your children and grandchildren? We have the opportunity and the privilege to pass it on. Isn’t it time we did our best?
Overview: Paul cautions believers to walk carefully using three contrasts: not as unwise, but as wise (5:15); not as foolish, but with understanding (5:17); and not getting drunk, but being filled with the Spirit (5:18). He further explains this third contrast. At conversion, Christians are sealed with the Spirit (a one-time event explained in 1:13–14) but throughout life are encouraged to be filled with the Spirit (a repeated experience). Three results of being filled with the Spirit are mentioned in 5:19–21: worship, gratitude, and mutual submission. These are distinguishing characteristics of the people of God. In 5:22–6:9, Paul explains how this final characteristic (mutual submission) is applied within the Christian household.
Insight: Household Codes · Three passages in the New Testam…
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 "Honor your father and mother"--which is the first commandment with a promise-- 3 "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."
4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
The same call to mutual submission applies to the relationship between children and their parents (6:1–4). Once more, Paul speaks first to the dependent party in the matched pair: children are to obey their parents as their role in the call to mutual submission (6:1). And once more, this comes as no surprise; Paul’s appeal to Exodus 20:12 affirms the ancient expectation (6:2–3). His observation that this commandment is the first to incorporate a promise raises the question of why some obedient children die young. But this commandment belongs to a complex community ethic. Yahweh’s people are called to a lifestyle reflecting his will. If they obey, they will live long as his people in the land he will give them. The instruction to children to obey their parents is not simply a word to this or that specific child but a word to the entire nation about raising children among God’s people.
The idea of submissive parents probably sounded as bizarre to Paul’s readers as did the idea of submissive husbands. Nonetheless, he calls parents to submit to their children in two ways (6:4). First, they must treat their children with dignity and respect, avoiding unnecessarily provoking them to anger through capricious and unkind treatment. The point is not the children’s anger but the parents’ provocation. Children only gradually learn the meaning of mature behavior from loving and submissive parents; they learn it neither untaught nor badly taught. Second, parents submit to their children by carrying out the high privilege and frequently frustrating task of bringing up children in Christian discipline and instruction. It requires every bit as much self-denial as what Paul recommended for married couples toward each other. We could conceivably read this text to say that the parents themselves are to be disciplined and instructed in the Lord as they bring up their children. Even if that is not what Paul meant in this text, it is not difficult to imagine that he might have agreed.
A continuation of these rules of conduct as they apply to children and parents (6:1–4) and slaves and masters (6:5–9) appears in 6:1–9. As in the section on the husband-wife relationship, there is the specific emphasis that the ethical life of the Christian is both grounded in and directed toward the Lord.
The superscription of submission “out of reverence for Christ” in 5:21 serves the entire code. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (5:22); children are to obey their parents “in the Lord”; fathers are to raise their children “in the training and instruction of the Lord” (6:4); slaves are to obey their earthly masters “just as you would obey Christ” (6:5) as his slaves (6:6). Masters, likewise, are to let Christ, the Master in heaven, govern their attitude and conduct toward their slaves (6:9).
It is possible that such rules of conduct were given as part of the catechetical instruction to newly baptized believers, but it is not necessary to conclude that the author is here addressing the congregation during a baptismal service. Nor does the inclusion of children in this instruction mean that infants were baptized. The primary concern is to demonstrate the kind of personal and domestic unity that should exist among Christians in the church.
6:1 Although the author is following Colossians 3:20–21 rather closely, there are some significant differences in this epistle. Children are exhorted to obey their parents because this is right. Obedience to parents is considered to be a self-evident and morally acceptable thing to do.
Thus, obedience to parents is considered to be a self-evident and morally acceptable thing to do for all families (the statement does not specify that only Christian parents are meant). The NIV in the Lord is a disputed reading in the Greek text, probably copied later because of a similar phrase in 5:22 (tō kyriō) and/or because it is parallel to Col. 3:20. If retained, it makes obedience a Christian as well as a universal obligation.
In Colossians, children are to “obey in everything.” Mitton suggests that the change in Ephesians would be appropriate “where the children addressed may have pagan parents,” thus necessitating “an obedience which does not contravene a primary obedience ‘to the Lord.’ ” (p. 210). Though obedience to parents is a universally acceptable principle, there are conflicts when Christian children are required to submit to parents who have no Christian commitment and whose moral standards run counter to Christ’s.
6:2–3 “Honor your father and mother”: Since this quotation from Exodus 20:12 (cf. Deut. 5:16) does not occur in the Colossians parallel, it is reasonable to assume that the author of Ephesians is either relying on a different tradition or making a point specifically appropriate to his audience. Obedience to this commandment carries the promise of prosperity and longevity. By the first commandment with a promise the author must mean first in importance with respect to children, because the second commandment, which prohibits idolatry, is followed by God’s promise to show his steadfast love to those who love him and keep his commandments (Exod. 20:6).
Initially, Exodus 20:12 referred to the promised land that God was giving to the children of Israel. Also, it would have been older children who were called upon to honor their parents by obeying and exercising care and responsibility for them. Ephesians shortens the phrase “in the land the Lord your God is giving you” (Exod. 20:12) to “on the earth.” The promised land is replaced by a more general or universal conception. God rewards a society or a community in which obedience and respect are practiced.
It is difficult to demonstrate the fulfillment of this promise in a society where a promise of reward does not always seem to hold true. Most commentators, therefore, interpret the author’s intention in general rather than individual terms. “Then what is promised,” claims Stott, “is not so much long life to each child who obeys his parents, as social stability to any community in which children honor their parents. Certainly a healthy society is inconceivable without a strong family life” (p. 241; cf. also Foulkes, p. 165; Mitton, p. 212, for similar applications).
6:4 The change from “parents” (6:1) to fathers may or may not be significant. Does the author mean that whereas obedience is required toward both parents, it is the father’s responsibility to administer discipline and nurture the child in spiritual things? This could attest to the strong patriarchal orientation of the first century in both Jewish and pagan society. A Roman father, for example (pater familias), exercised a rigid and sovereign control over his household (Stott, p. 245; Barclay, p. 208).
Negatively, fathers are exhorted not to exasperate (from parorgizō, “provoke to anger”) their children. Obedience can be expected, but it cannot be demanded by provoking and irritating children, or causing them to be angry (Col. 3:21 adds “or they will become discouraged”). Positively, parents are urged to bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
The verb for “raise” (ektrephō) has the meaning of nourish. Though it can be used for bodily nourishment and care (5:29), it applies also to the care given to the entire person. This nurture is given through Christian discipline (paideia) and instruction (nouthesia). These exhortations for catechetical instruction may be related to the baptismal nature of the epistle. This may be one reason why this verse is omitted in Colossians; another could be that Ephesians was written considerably later than Colossians and thus reflects an increasingly parental and church concern for children.
Some commentators draw a rather rigid distinction between the two categories of nurture that are employed, suggesting that paideia means training by disciplinary action and nouthesia refers to verbal instruction (Foulkes, p. 166; Stott, p. 248). Such distinctions, according to Mitton, are a little “strained,” although “the words together suggest both the inculcation of patterns of behaviour worthy of a Christian and also verbal instruction about the contents of the faith” (p. 213).
Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12 13).
Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).
For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44 48; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).
Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.
The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.
Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.
In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1 Cor. 15:48–57; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1 John 1:9).
The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).
Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.
On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:5 6). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).
In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.
In the Bible, “discipline” can refer, positively, to training that instills wisdom in an individual (sometimes translated “instruction”) and, negatively, to punishment or correction of groups or individuals (sometimes translated “chastisement”). Discipline comes from God or from humans, especially from parents to their children. Biblical references to discipline in the Bible occur largely in several clusters, especially in Lev. 26:14–46; Deuteronomy (4:36; 8:5; 11:2; 21:18; 22:18); Job (4:3; 5:17; 20:3; 33:16; 36:10); Psalms (throughout); Proverbs (throughout); Jeremiah (2:19; 5:3; 6:8; 7:28; 10:8, 24; 17:23; 30:11, 14; 31:18; 32:33; 35:13; 46:28); and in the NT, in Heb. 12:5–11. Elsewhere, the language of discipline occurs to a limited extent in Isa. 8:11; 26:16; 28:22, 26; Ezek. 5:15; Hos. 5:2; 7:15; 10:10; Zeph. 3:2, 7; and in the NT, in 1 Cor. 11:32; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:16; Rev. 3:19. Most of the OT passages cited above can be described as pertaining to the themes of wisdom (citations of Proverbs and Job) and covenant (citations of Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Hosea).
Divine discipline. OT wisdom and poetry affirm that it is a blessing to be disciplined by God, even in the negative sense of chastisement (e.g., Job 5:17; Ps. 94:12; Prov. 3:11). This surprising attitude is no doubt due to the close connection between God’s chastening of humans and his covenant relationship with them. Indeed, the prophetic threat of divine discipline often comes in response to the covenant unfaithfulness of God’s people, and such discipline is intended to correct human sin so that the covenant relationship can ultimately be restored (cf. Lev. 16:18–28 with the final resolution of the situation in Lev. 26:40–45, whereby chastisement effects repentance and reconciliation). The author of Hebrews quotes Prov. 3:11–12, reminding his readers that “the Lord disciplines the one he loves” (12:6). As Jeremiah mocks the silliness of worshiping vain idols that are no more than “a scarecrow in a cucumber field” (Jer. 10:5), he points out that unlike the living God of Israel, idols lack the power to administer discipline or instruction (10:8).
In addition to this positive view of divine discipline, there is a prominent but complementary strand of thought that involves imploring the Lord for relief from deserved divine discipline: “Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger or discipline me in your wrath” (Pss. 6:1; 38:1). Here is a recognition that while God’s discipline proceeds from his love, it is not a thing to be considered lightly or embraced flippantly.
Human parental discipline. Given the importance of discipline in the education of children, it is not surprising that the theme is well developed in wisdom literature (Proverbs and Job), where issues of parenting are prominent. The opening words of the book of Proverbs assert the value of the proverbs “to teach people wisdom and discipline,” among other things (1:2 NLT). Discipline is paired with wisdom in another of the book’s best-known passages: “Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline” (1:7 NLT; see also 12:1; 23:23). In addition to divine discipline (see above), Proverbs speaks of the discipline administered by parents, warning that “a fool spurns a parent’s discipline” (15:5), admonishing children to heed “a father’s instruction” (4:1), and urging parents, “Discipline your children, for in that there is hope; do not be a willing party to their death” (19:18). Discipline can sometimes take the form of physical punishment, as in 23:13: “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die” (see also 13:24; 22:15). In Proverbs discipline is construed both positively, as when it is paired with wisdom or knowledge (23:12), and negatively, as in 15:10: “Stern discipline awaits anyone who leaves the path.”
Proverbs often equates listening to discipline with life, and spurning discipline with death. In the law of Deut. 21:18–21, this equation is more than a figure of speech: the son who rejects discipline from his parents is to be stoned to death by the elders of his town. The congruity between divine and human parental discipline is well illustrated in Deut. 8:5: “Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you.” Similarly, the author of Hebrews teaches, “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?” (12:7). And the writer of Ephesians urges fathers, “Do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline [paideia] and instruction of the Lord” (6:4 NRSV).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.
In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.
In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8; 26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination” (Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20; 32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law (Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod. 32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).
The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation of the family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21) or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov. 6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps. 2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7; 26:16–19), and the church (1 Pet. 2:9).
Wealth symbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen. 12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1 Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state of being poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of moral lassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth and value. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, and to expose them is to invite disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1 Cor. 12:23–24).
The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28; Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen. 45:13), military exploits (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to perform one’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa. 23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss of social status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7). An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing (Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.
In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translated as “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses that the laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’s instruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God (Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah) proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of his promises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions (dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priests fail to give “true instruction,” they let the people go astray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly, failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’s condemnation (Ps. 50:17).
But the biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual is Proverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim, the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction (musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting (1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similar Egyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims of Ptahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbial writing, Ahiqar.
While Proverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispenses advice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element of the biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound to the “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs, instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom” (chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose” woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.
Jesus was known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in the Synoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christ entails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction (logos) of Jesus (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone who disregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with (2 Thess. 3:14).
Instruction (didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by the one so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is to be shared in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness is also to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by the church (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failure to heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God (1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Thess. 3:14). On the other hand, reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) should encourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See also Education.
In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translated as “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses that the laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’s instruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God (Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah) proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of his promises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions (dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priests fail to give “true instruction,” they let the people go astray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly, failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’s condemnation (Ps. 50:17).
But the biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual is Proverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim, the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction (musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting (1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similar Egyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims of Ptahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbial writing, Ahiqar.
While Proverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispenses advice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element of the biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound to the “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs, instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom” (chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose” woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.
Jesus was known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in the Synoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christ entails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction (logos) of Jesus (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone who disregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with (2 Thess. 3:14).
Instruction (didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by the one so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is to be shared in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness is also to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by the church (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failure to heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God (1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Thess. 3:14). On the other hand, reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) should encourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See also Education.
A type of training, generally referred to in the NIV as “discipline” (Prov. 3:11–12; 15:5; Heb. 12:5, 7, 10). For children, it encompasses the cultivation of the mind and morals, which includes essential corrections, reproofs, punishment, and restraint that exhibits godly character toward Christian growth (Eph. 6:4). For adults, Scripture has a role in this “training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Even as earthly fathers discipline their children, God “disciplines the one he loves” (Heb. 12:6). Disciplinary sufferings are a demonstration of sonship (Heb. 12:5–11). Nurturing is also a type of care that can be shown to plants, akin to the proper care of children (Ps. 144:12).
A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).
In the OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar [e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4]) God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed as listening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV, NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’s voice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaic covenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the laws set forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, God would bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, he would curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history of Israel sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen people and the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2 Kings 18:9–12; 2 Chron. 36:11–21), even though God repeatedly warned the people through his prophets that this destruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).
In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).
The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinct elements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he or she has the right to tell others what to do and decide how matters should be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she has not only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the power to control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. When the angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority (Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same sense of authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod. 18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense of authority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewise regarding the one who “overcomes” in the book of Revelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rule the nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Both ideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in that context.
The authority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, being evidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the crowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who had authority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29). Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10), natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32), culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitate the dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallel passages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains. John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge (5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and to grant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority of Christ over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme of the book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for the sake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority in opposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the Great Commission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18; cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right and as power always to coincide in the end.
On this same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first to God and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be done in good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord” throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over those whom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20). For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on the Corinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over” others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant must respect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19). Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph. 5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slaves must yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), and laypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).
Respect for authority also extends to secular governments, whatever the character of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to kill David (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would kill Saul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons to distrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he is subjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts 16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands the church to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God has established them, so that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In 1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secular rulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authority even when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they do prevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks of revolutionary enthusiasm.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Broadly speaking, child abuse refers to physical maltreatment and/or sexual molestation of a child. Often both occur together. In child abuse, legal, moral, and psychological domains are affected. A natural dependence, trust, and frailty define a child, with adulthood typically starting around age eighteen.
Child abuse brings chaos where the Creator blessed with fruitful life (Gen. 1:28; 9:7). Children signify one of God’s richest blessings (Ps. 127:3–6). Pharaoh’s pogrom against the Hebrew children only served to highlight the midwives who “feared God” and chose to foster rather than harm life (Exod. 1:15–22). Orphans lacked parental protection and uniquely came under God’s care as the “helper of fatherless” (Ps. 10:14, 18; cf. James 1:27).
Sadly, one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused, 14 percent under the age of six. Most sexual abuse is incest, perpetrated by known providers, often the father. But fathers are exhorted not to even “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4; cf. Col. 3:21). For an abused child, their bridging metaphors for God (e.g., “father” and “mother”) can be permanently crushed.
Fortunately, the abused child can find a “spiritual family” in the church (cf. Mark 10:28–30). But woe to those who cause “one of these little ones—those who believe in me” to stumble (Matt. 18:1–6).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Although the Bible is dominated by a patriarchal perspective, as one would expect from the ancient Near East, there is also a valuing of women that comes to the surface. Although this falls short of what we would call “gender equality” today, the Bible does make overtures in that direction. Already in the Genesis creation story, men and women are described as the two halves of humanity, who together participate in the mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:26–28). Eve is created from the side of Adam, indicating equality in their very beings (2:21–23).
In his own ministry, Jesus includes women in ways that were unusual for his context. In first-century Palestine, learning from spiritual teachers was a privilege reserved exclusively for men. However, in the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), Jesus commends Mary for breaking her expected role as a woman in order to follow him and learn at his feet. Martha, however, receives a sharp rebuke for allowing domestic duties to hinder her discipleship. Jesus’ first resurrection appearance is to women in all of the Gospels, even though the testimony of a woman was generally not considered valid in legal matters in first-century Palestine (although rabbinic literature suggests it was considered valid testimony for a woman to confirm a man’s death). Jesus takes particular efforts to elevate the position of women, despite a possible tarnishing of his public image.
The concern for greater gender equality extends into the rest of the NT. Paul says that in Christ all are one regardless of ethnicity, status, or gender (Gal. 3:28). Paul also refers to women as coworkers in the gospel (Rom. 16:3) and as deacons (16:1). Although frequently cited in order to support a hierarchal family structure, the household codes (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7) are a step toward gender equality in the Greco-Roman culture, since secular household codes usually placed responsibilities on wives, not husbands. That Paul gives responsibilities to husbands is a significant shift toward a mutuality of devotion and obligation.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Incest can be defined as sexual intercourse or sexual contact between close relatives that is considered by society to be illegal, immoral, or socially taboo. The Bible has no term analogous to the English word “incest.” Instead, the OT uses numerous verbal idioms to denote defilement, such as “perversion” (Lev. 20:12) or “wickedness” (18:17; 20:14). What emerges is a catalog of forbidden pairings (Lev. 18:6–18; 20:11–12, 17, 19; Deut. 22:30; 27:20, 22–23; Ezek. 22:10–11), not unlike the ancient Hittite laws or the Code of Hammurabi.
The strongest prohibitions against incest are in Lev. 18; 20; Deut. 27. What Israelite society could not control, God oversaw. In Lev. 18:16–23 the entire unit moves gradually from incestuous unions to other illicit expressions. The consequences of incest are, according to OT legislation in Leviticus, the defilement of the land itself (18:24–30), death (20:11–12), childlessness (20:21), and banishment from the covenant community (20:17; cf. Matt. 18:15–18; 1 Cor. 5:2, 5, 13).
OT narratives, however, often describe the fallout from incestuous unions: father and daughters (Lot and his daughters [Gen. 19:30–35]), older brother and sister (Amnon and Tamar [2 Sam. 13:14–15]), son and father’s wives (Absalom and David’s concubines [Gen. 35:22; 2 Sam. 16:22]), father-in-law with daughter-in-law (Judah and Tamar [Gen. 38:15]). The sole NT reference is in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, a son engaging in sexual relations with his stepmother, which Paul calls porneia (KJV: “fornication”; NIV: “sexual immorality”). This man’s actions also violated Roman law (Gaius, Inst. 1.63).
In contemporary times, the most common type of incest is between father and daughter. Such sexual activity between an adult and a prepubescent or adolescent inflicts some of the most extreme trauma and long-term psychological damage. Modern notions of “consent,” vis-à-vis adult and adolescent, do not avoid various forms of damage to the child. Sibling incest is most prevalent in families where one or both parents are largely absent or emotionally unavailable. Incest perpetrated by an adult against a child is called “intrafamilial child sexual abuse.”
Nine characteristics of incestuous families have been identified: (1) shame, (2) abuse of power, (3) distorted communication, (4) social isolation, (5) denial, (6) lack of intimacy, (7) blurred boundaries, (8) dependency/emotional neediness, (9) and lack of forgiveness. According to the Mayo Clinic, approximately 95 percent of child sexual abuse cases are committed by 88 percent of child offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.
Incest by a parent, the guardian figure in particular, may be the most profound illustration of malicious leadership. Incest comprises the vast majority of child sexual abuse (80 percent). Creation intended a conferred authority for a dependent’s growth, but incestuous acts within a family epitomize the corruption of social order through control, perversion, and unpredictability.
Incest far exceeds Paul’s injunction that fathers not “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4). A child victim of incest begins to wonder if the abusing father, mother, or older sibling is guardian or lover. Incest further counters the creation design because a child cannot give or receive as an equal. A son or a daughter represents the union of mother and father; as such, children are not sufficiently “other” to be an object of sexual love. Thus, incest destroys family ties because it disregards created boundaries.
The fundamental damage caused by incest stems from the child’s developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency, and sexuality. Many adult mental health problems are second-order effects, tied to the person’s history of sexual abuse, incest or otherwise. In the United States alone, estimates point to about twenty million persons victimized by parental incest as children.
A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).
In the OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar [e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4]) God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed as listening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV, NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’s voice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaic covenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the laws set forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, God would bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, he would curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history of Israel sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen people and the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2 Kings 18:9–12; 2 Chron. 36:11–21), even though God repeatedly warned the people through his prophets that this destruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).
In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).
The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).
In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.
In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.
In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8; 26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination” (Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20; 32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law (Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod. 32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).
The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation of the family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21) or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov. 6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps. 2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7; 26:16–19), and the church (1 Pet. 2:9).
Wealth symbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen. 12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1 Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state of being poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of moral lassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth and value. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, and to expose them is to invite disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1 Cor. 12:23–24).
The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28; Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen. 45:13), military exploits (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to perform one’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa. 23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss of social status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7). An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing (Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.
Patriarchal Structures
A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).
Aristotelian Household Codes
Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”
The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children, Parenting, and Education
Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Family as an Analogy
The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
