Sermon and Worship Resources

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 · The Lord’s Supper

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

The New Covenant

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

Sermon
by Dennis Kastens

The meal which we celebrate here tonight has not simply been celebrated annually on this Maundy Thursday for the past twenty or fifty years, like many church customs. In fact, unlike even the more stable of church traditions, it has not simply been observed since the beginning of the Christian Era - but it has been celebrated far back into the distant reaches of history, back even further than Moses and the Exodus from Egypt.

In a sense, the celebration of this meal, which is linked to the blood covenants of ancient peoples, possibly goes back to the very beginning of the human race. Until the last century, the observance of a blood covenant was common among primitive peoples in Africa, Southeast Asia and even the remote islands of the various oceans. The fact that this practice was so widespread, seemingly universal in earlier times (encompassing even early China, India and the Middle East), bears mute testimony to the fact that it must have been an original revelation from God. However, over the years as tribes and families veered from divine truth, it eventually degenerated.

Nevertheless, it yet maintained distinguishable marks relating to what we celebrate here this evening. This is especially attested to in the nineteenth century writings of Stanley and Livingstone who explored Africa and helped pave the way for gospel outreach on that continent.

Livingstone calls attention to it, as do other explorers of his era, and in Stanley’s books of exploration he tells us that he "cut the covenant" more than fifty times with different tribes. In one instance he came in contact with a powerful, very war-like, equatorial tribe. Stanley was not in condition to fight them. Finally, his interpreter asked why he didn’t make a strong covenant with them - with the chieftain of the tribe. Stanley asked what the results of such a covenant would be, and the interpreter answered, "Everything the chieftain has will be yours if you need it."

This appealed to Stanley and he investigated. After several days of negotiation they arrived at the covenant. First, there was a parley in which the chieftain questioned Stanley as to his motives and standing, and his ability to keep the covenant.

The next step was an exchange of gifts. The old chieftain wanted Stanley’s white goat. Stanley was in poor health and goat’s milk was very important for his nourishment, so it was difficult for him to give this up, but the chieftain seemed to want nothing else. So he finally gave up the goat, and the chieftain handed him his seven-foot copper-wound spear. Stanley thought he had been beaten, but he found that wherever he went with that spear, everyone bowed to him and submitted to him.

The old chieftain then brought in one of his princes. Stanley led forth one of his attendants from England. The blood of these two men was mingled in a libation which made them blood brothers.

These two men were only substitutes, but they had bound Stanley and the chieftain, and Stanley’s men and the chieftain’s soldiers were thus into a blood brotherhood that was indissoluble.

The next step in this ceremony was the planting of trees, trees that were known for their long life. After this planting the chieftain stepped forward and shouted, "Come, buy and sell with Stanley, for he is our blood brother." A few hours before, Stanley’s men had had to stand guard over their bales of cotton cloth and trinkets, but now they could be left open and yet undisturbed. For anyone to steal from a blood brother meant the death penalty. The old chieftain couldn’t do enough for his new found brother.

Stanley couldn’t understand the sacredness of it, and years later still wondered about it until he read of the covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 17 and Genesis 22. There he saw the striking parallel.

And when he read further of various covenant renewal ceremonies in the Old Testament, he was able to link the Lord’s Supper in an awesome manner all the way back to the earlier practices, originating quite possibly already with Adam and Eve. And when he read Luke 22:15ff., these words of Jesus impressed him profoundly:

"I long to break this bread with you and drink this cup"; and after he had blessed the bread and brake it, he said, "This is my body that is broken for you." Then he took a cup of wine and said, "This is my blood of the new covenant that is poured out for many unto the remission of sins."

The old blood covenant was the basis on which the new covenant was founded. And this old covenant (quite possibly extant since the beginning of the human race) found special expression in the festival of the Passover, marking the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt in Moses’ day - a time of heightened covenant-consciousness on the part of God’s pilgrim people.

And so to understand more clearly what is involved in the sacramental meal which we observe here tonight, we must especially consider this feast. It accentuates, in a special way, the importance of God’s covenant which eventually comes to a climax in the Holy Supper.

Let us recall the details! Israel had been instructed to join together in family units to eat a meal, the menu of which was to be a male lamb "without blemish," unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. The bitter herbs were to symbolize the bitterness of the suffering that the Israelites had endured during their many years of bondage in Egypt. The unleavened bread was for them an emblem of purity. Leaven (yeast) was a symbol of sin. Baking the bread without yeast symbolized the casting out of sin. The lamb was the sacrifice for sin.

After they had slain the lamb, the Israelites were to smear the blood of the animal on the lintels of their doors. And those doors with the blood overhead would be spared the tenth plague - the visitation of the angel of death upon the first-born. God told the Israelites: "When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you when I smite the land of Egypt." (Exodus 12:13)

It took a mighty act of faith on the part of the Israelites to believe this and to perform such a ceremony. But every house that was marked was spared that night! And it is also thus with Holy Communion which is the new covenant! It takes a mighty act of faith to know that we shall be spared the due reward of our misdeeds if in faith we participate in the ceremony instituted by Jesus Christ on Maundy Thursday - that God’s great act of deliverance is conveyed to us under such an earthly means. But so it is, and so it shall be until the end of time: "As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come."

Really, of course, the simplicity of all this is very much in keeping with the approach of God throughout history. When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God chose a rough feed trough to cradle his Son (instead of a royal palace and bed). When Jesus was crucified, he was placed on a quickly thrown together and crudely constructed cross on which he worked out the redemption of the world. He identified himself fully and completely with the coarseness of the humanity he came to save.

So it is in Holy Communion! Here we receive under the forms of bread and wine, common household items, the true body and blood of Jesus Christ; here we receive all of the living resurrected Christ - all of him that died and rose again for our salvation! To be sure, we also receive this same Christ through the spoken word - that is through the reading, speaking, studying, and sharing of the Bible. Christ does come to us through the Scriptures in a saving sense! For this reason people sometimes ask: "If I derive the same blessing in the Sacrament that I derive from the promises of God in the gospel, do I really need the Sacrament? If I receive forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, why must I go to the Lord’s Supper to receive the forgiveness of sins?" And here we reply, "Yes, of course, we receive forgiveness of sins in the written and spoken gospel, and in that sense the Sacrament is not an absolute necessity. But, you can live, too, if you have only one lung. You can exist with only one kidney. You can see with only one eye, or hear with only one ear. But when you have both your intended organs, your life is healthier and richer." So it is when the Christian lives on both Word and Sacrament! To use only one is to "limp along" in spiritual life. Our Lord is not asking us to do him a favor when he exhorts us to partake of the Sacrament frequently. He is rather doing us a favor by offering his blessings and giving us the opportunity again and again to have them poured into our lives. Actually, receiving Holy Communion is something like a sick man receiving a blood transfusion. He can "limp along at a slow pace of recovery" without a transfusion, but why should he have to drag his feet for weeks when help is readily available? So too, we, who are sin-sick, whose lives are constantly being weakened by the germs and viruses of sin and temptation, need to have our spiritual anemia removed, cured and re-cured, by the indwelling presence and power of the living and dynamic Lord Jesus Christ. And this is where the Sacrament of Holy Communion fits in.

Draw nigh and take the body of the Lord
And drink the holy blood for you outpoured.
Offered was he for greatest and for least,
Himself the victim and himself the priest.

He that his saints in this world rules and shields
To all believers life eternal yields,
With heavenly bread makes them that hunger whole,
Gives living waters to the thirsting soul.

Approach ye, then with faithful hearts sincere
And take the pledges of salvation here.
O Judge of all, our only Savior thou,
In this thy feast of love, be with us now. Amen.

- Latin author unknown, c. 680.

CSS Publishing Co., Inc., Once You Were Darkness, by Dennis Kastens

Overview and Insights · Proper Conduct During the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34)

Celebration of the Lord’s Supper in conjunction with a corporate meal was a regular part of worship in the early church, but the Corinthian gatherings were full of problems (11:17). The wealthy members with more leisure time would gather early. They would eat the best food and drink too much wine, leaving nothing for the other believers. As a result, some got drunk, while others went…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 · The Lord’s Supper

Commentary · The Lord’s Supper

In contrast to the previous section, Paul has no praise for what he has heard about the Corinthians’ demeanor when they gather in worship at the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34). Indeed, as it is, their behavior does “more harm than good.” For in the midst of a celebration of unity, there are divisions among fellow believers. And while some “differences” are needed to distinguish those who believe and act genuinely (receiving “God’s approval” as a result) from those who do not, other differences are unnecessary; and if stubbornly or pridefully maintained, they are liable to result in judgment (11:34).

The division between those who remain hungry and those who get drunk at the Lord’s table is one such unnecessary and dangerous difference. For when it exists, the disunity created means that “it is not the Lord’s Supper” that is being eaten. Homes are settings in which one may eat and drink freely according to his or her own means, but to do so in the midst of others who are hungry is to despise the new order of the church of God, in which people, both slave and free, are united in their status in Christ (12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11) and to humiliate Christian brothers and sisters. Paul’s words imply that the Corinthian church celebrated the Lord’s Supper at the end of a communal meal, and there is just enough evidence about the members of the church (see Theissen) to suggest that the division of which Paul has heard is the product of differences in social and economic status, which were a prominent feature of life in the first century.

Since Paul cannot praise the Corinthians for remembering what he has taught them about the Lord’s Supper, he now reminds them of the words he received and “passed on” to them. (The two verbs are technical terms in Judaism for the deliberate preservation and careful transmission of a tradition as it was originally “received” from its source. Paul therefore provides what is probably the earliest account in the New Testament of this part of the tradition about Jesus’s words and actions; cf. Luke 1:1–3.) Paul’s testimony accords quite closely, though not exactly, with that of the Gospel records. Our Lord, on the night of his betrayal, took bread, gave thanks, broke it into pieces, and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me” (11:24). These words, precisely in contrast to their intent, have proven to be an abiding source of division among Christians. For whatever the relationship established between the body and the bread, both are given for the benefit of all (the “you” is plural in Greek), that all may share in one body and celebrate their unity together in this memorial. In the same way, Jesus took the cup at the end of the meal and said, “This cup is the new covenant [see Jer. 31:31–34] in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me” (11:25). Thus, whenever Christians together “eat this bread and drink this cup” (in contrast to common food and drink), they proclaim the Lord’s death, which is for all (2 Cor. 5:14–16), inaugurating the new age (2 Cor. 5:17; 10:11) that will be brought to its culmination when he returns.

Therefore, because of the significance invested in these elements, anyone who consumes them in a manner that is not in keeping with their purpose of uniting believers with each other and with their Lord “will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27). He will have failed to distinguish the consumption of these elements from that of ordinary food and drink. So all people, before they eat or drink, should examine their attitudes toward those with whom they are about to share in this most intimate fellowship. For if the Corinthians do not sense within themselves, or within their previous behavior toward those around them, a genuine affirmation of unity, or a willingness to affirm unity, then they have failed to “recognize the body of the Lord,” which is made present in order to unite and celebrate the unity of all with Christ, and they eat and drink judgment on themselves. Furthermore (as Paul discerns from what he has heard), judgment has already begun to manifest itself in the weakness, sickness, and death of some within the church (though one should not presume that any of these symptoms are always associated with divine judgment [John 9:3]). But such signs of judgment would be unnecessary if the Corinthians would judge themselves in the manner Paul has indicated (11:31). The conclusion to be reached is brief. When the Corinthians gather in worship to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they must “wait for each other” and come together to eat instead of going ahead as individuals with their own private provisions. If any are so hungry that they cannot wait, then they should eat at home first so as not to provoke judgment. Paul will provide more directions when he comes (11:34).

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

Big Idea: Christian worship must happen in an atmosphere of humility and self-giving. Self-promoting pride desecrates Christ and brings devastation to his community.

Understanding the Text

The danger of an amalgamation between pagan and Christian worship loomed in the Corinthian setting. After pointing out how clothing (veiling) blurred what should have been a clear distinction between pagan and Christian worship practices (11:2–16), Paul now turns to the issue of the Lord’s Supper itself. The very rooms in homes that used to host pagan worship in the setting of a private dinner were now the space for Christian worship, including the Christian meal called the Lord’s Supper (see the “Additional Insights” following this unit). A mere change of liturgy, prayers, and readings is insufficient—Christian worship requires a form that expresses the content of Christ’s gospel.

Interpretive Insight

11:17 In the following directives I have no praise for you. Striking a sterner tone, Paul contrasts his commendation in 11:2 with the opposite statement here. Whereas the issue of clothing in worship settings needs correction to avoid confusion with paganism and to avoid sending a message about communal and marital relationships that does not portray Christ, turning the Lord’s Supper into a traditional private dining experience is a direct violation, if not an outright desecration, of the Christ meal. They have transformed the meal that is supposed to exemplify Christ’s self-giving sacrifice into an event designed for divisive self-glorification. As Paul sees it, their gatherings “do more harm than good.”

11:18 when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you. Although the same word is used as in 1:10, the divisions (schismata) referenced here are not between patrons but within the individual house groups. A Christian patron would gather with friends of his (or her) own rank in the triclinium while slaves and clients would gather in the atrium.[1] Here they would eat standing or, at best, seated tightly together while the patron and prominent friends were reclining within view in the adjacent room. Beyond being socioeconomically motivated, these divisions probably followed ethnic/racial lines as well. Roman slaves, generally speaking, were “spoils of war.” A certain hierarchy existed even among the slaves, as Romans often preferred barbarian tribes for protection and military efforts, Greeks for education and cultural development, and tribes of other descents for more menial tasks. When, therefore, Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother, even as Philemon would Paul himself (Philem. 16–17), it is a drastic alteration of the common order, underscoring the radical nature of Christ’s transformative call. The removal of the divisions (schismata) goes to the heart of this issue of equality in the Christ community (Gal. 3:28).

to some extent I believe it. This somewhat difficult statement does not suggest that Paul considers this might be a rumor. Rather, it is an expression of outrage, like saying, “This is unbelievable—I can’t believe you are doing this.”2

11:19–21a there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. On the surface it seems as if Paul speaks in favor of division. Most of the English translations indeed seem to promote such a reading.[3] This then refers to the eschatological revelation of who among the Corinthians were genuine Christians. Given the context, however, it seems highly unlikely that Paul suddenly switches to a soteriological statement. Rather, Paul, with a hint of sarcasm, expresses concern about social distinctions that destroy the very meaning of the Christ meal and the unity of the Christ community. The Greek hoi dokimoi (lit., “the approved”), then, refers to the wealthy who considered themselves the approved (or significant) Christians in distinction from the “riffraff” group (usually called hoi polloi) that met in the atrium.[4] A few verses later, then, with a brilliant wordplay, Paul indicts the elite. Rather than considering themselves dokimoi (“approved”), they should dokimazet? (“examine”) themselves before they participate in the Lord’s Supper (11:28).

11:21b-22 humiliating those who have nothing. The idea that these verses suggest the wealthy went ahead and ate the available food before the poor were able to come probably roots in a translation of the Greek word ekdechesthe (11:33) as “wait for.” However, as Winter has shown, the better translation of ekdechesthe is “receive.”5(The NIV uses the ambiguous phrase “eat together.”) Paul’s point is not that food had run out but that the rich were humiliating the poor (11:22) by eating the superior food in the triclinium with the poor watching from the atrium. Verse 33 then resolves the problem expressed in 11:18: “When you gather to eat, you should all eat together” (or “show hospitality to one another”). The format for the supper needed to change. If a small group of the elite enjoyed their dinner in the triclinium, the poor would have to be there for the ceremonial breaking of the bread before the dinner—then wait while the elite ate—in order to participate in the “cup of blessing” at the dinner’s conclusion (11:25). As Paul puts it, “one person remains hungry and another gets drunk” (11:21).

11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you. Following his usual pattern, Paul grounds his argument in the Jesus tradition. The opening “for” (gar) gives reason; what follows explains why the divisions at the Lord’s Supper celebration are intolerable. The formulation “I received . . . I also passed on” follows the rabbinical pattern for authoritative explanation of entrusted tradition.

11:24 This is my body. Paul’s subtle change of the word order recorded in the Gospel narratives (“this is my body”)[6] to (literally) “this of mine is the body” hints that his point is not to quote a liturgical saying but to use Jesus’s words as a corrective to the errant ways of the Corinthian behavior. The demonstrative pronoun “this” (touto) is a neuter and cannot well refer to bread as such, which is a masculine word in Greek.[7] Rather, it refers to the self-sacrificing event of Jesus—an event so outwardly dishonored by the Corinthian elite’s behavior. They have taken the event Christ himself designed as a constant reminder of his self-sacrifice (“do this in remembrance of me”) and turned it into an event for self-glorification.

11:25–26 new covenant in my blood. This points to Jesus’s self-sacrifice and power to reconcile (cf. Col. 1:20; Eph. 2:13–18). The new covenant is a covenant of self-sacrifice established in Jesus’s blood. If Exodus 24:7–8 was recited as part of the ritual surrounding the cup of blessing (see comments on 10:16), which is likely, Paul’s use of the tradition would have hit with full force as a stern corrective to the Corinthians’ behavior. They were blaspheming the very covenant of Jesus and acting as if he were not their kyrios (patron) and they were not his douloi (slaves or clients). Such behavior completely contradicts the meal Christ designed to be his community’s repeated proclamation of their covenant with him until he comes.

11:27 whoever eats . . . in an unworthy manner will be guilty. Contrary to what often seems suggested in modern Western churches, Paul does not design this verse as a call to quiet reflection upon the worthiness of one’s personal relationship with Christ while the music is softly playing. Paul’s point is that those who so blatantly desecrate the Lord’s table through the behavior just outlined stand guilty8of dishonoring their covenant with Christ—they act in spite of Christ’s blood and thereby call God’s judgment against themselves (11:29). They treat the Lord’s Supper like a pagan event—in effect becoming idolaters and not worshipers of Christ.

11:28 Everyone ought to examine themselves. Instead of considering themselves “approved” (dokimoi [11:19]), they should “examine themselves” (dokimazet? . . . heauton). The Greek hout?s (“thus”) speaks to the manner in which they should come. If they approached the Lord’s Supper with humility, they would all join for a common meal without distinctions (11:19). The self-examination is the test that reveals whether their behavior and lifestyle reflect Christ’s (cf. Mark 14:17–21).

11:29 without discerning the body of Christ. Lack of concern for the body brings judgment. It is uncertain whether Paul has the church or the elements of the Lord’s Supper in mind with this phrase. It is possible he deliberately plays on the dual application of the expression. Those who lack concern for the church (Christ’s body [10:16]), which they show by the way they break the bread and drink the cup (the representation of Christ’s body [11:27]), will face judgment.

11:30 weak and sick . . . fallen asleep. Paul’s direct linking of weakness, illness, and death to a manipulation of the Lord’s Supper seems crass to most modern readers. However, his aim is not to create a measuring tool for the individual Corinthian to conclude backward that those who were weak and ill, or who died, had desecrated the Lord’s Supper, while those who were in good health had not. Nothing in the text indicates that Paul refers to the elite as being the ones who are sick and dying. Paul speaks corporately; this is God’s judgment on the community as such. He may refer simply to specific illnesses (and deaths) stemming from poverty issues such as hunger and malnutrition—issues that could, and should, have been avoided in Christ’s body (the church).[9] Because they were not, the church experienced the same judgment as the surrounding community. The Christ community had become as weak as the community around them and was no longer expressing the presence of Christ (Matt. 11:4–5; Luke 7:22).

11:31–32 we would not come under such judgment. Paul’s emphasis, “If we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment,” relates his comment in 11:28–29 directly to his audience’s experience of divine judgment.[10] What they experienced now was avoidable. Thankfully, God’s temporary judgments are meant to function as instruments of discipline. Their purpose is to bring about a change in the community that rescues it from the ultimate condemnation that will come to the world (cf. Heb. 12:7).

11:33–34 you should all eat together . . . eat something at home. Paul’s point may be not merely to give mundane practical advice but to say that the purpose of the community’s gathering is to proclaim the gospel (the Lord’s death) and not to satisfy one’s own desire. They could do the latter at home. Paul’s focus is the community and their Christlikeness. Those who have come merely for personal interest should stay home.

Theological Insights

Because worship must reveal Christ in order to be Christian, worshipers must worship with the attitude that characterized Christ (Phil. 2:3–5). Divisions in the Christ community—whether socioeconomic, ethnic, or other—hinder God-honoring worship.

Roman Homes and Households: A typical wealthy Roman home had two clearly distinct dining areas—the triclinium and the atrium. The triclinium was the private dining area for the patron, a lavishly decorated room designed for a small group of friends and business associates. It usually seated nine to twelve people reclining for dinner. Three (tri) couches (klin?), or rows of couches, were placed in a horseshoe-type fashion with tables in the middle. The rest of the household (slaves, servants, children, etc.) ate in the atrium. The atrium was a large open-air room (courtyard) in the middle of the house designed, among other things, to collect rainwater.[1] It gave access to most other rooms in the house and would be directly connected to the triclinium. The atrium traditionally held thirty to forty people for a stand-up dinner. Those gathered in the atrium would receive cheaper food and, if any, the leftovers from the triclinium. The whole dining experience would highlight the distinctions in social rank between those eating.

The normal Corinthian household did not look much like a modern Western “nuclear family”—at least not in the traditional sense of mom, dad, and the kids. To the contrary, the home was not necessarily the family’s place of privacy or place to withdraw from the hustle of public interaction. Rather, the family’s business (the store) was a room in the house. “Home schooling” was the norm of the day, unless people were wealthy enough to send their children (or one of them) to school for training in rhetoric, and so forth. Helpers/slaves were part of the family structure and lived in the house, as opposed to special slave quarters (even medium-income families had five or six slaves). In the case of a patron’s home, a flow of clients would come daily for food, help, approval, signatures, and so on. Extended families without wealth of their own would likewise be part of the home. As all the common Roman household codes, including Paul’s (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1) show, the home was a place of interaction between a number of different groups—husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves—not a place of escape and family intimacy.

It is into such a situation, where the spousal relationship had become a mere part of the business of the home, that Paul speaks this word of liberation and pastoral guidance (see, for example, 1 Cor. 7). Gospel informed, Paul’s directives run contrary to the ordinary customs in Roman Corinth, where a phrase like “a husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife” (7:4) would sound odd—if not completely off.

Teaching the Text

1. Erasing socioeconomic distinctions in the church community has not become easier since Paul wrote these verses. The form may have changed, and the outrageous expressions described by Paul may have become subdued. Still, Paul’s call to a community life in which everyone comes to the Lord’s table as a servant of the One who invited them and called them to give their lives for others remains pertinent. Contrary to the patrons who used their dinner invitations to show favoritism, Christ shows no favoritism in the invitation to sit around his table (cf. Luke 22:25–27; 7:36–39, 44–46; James 2:3). The very act of considering the socioeconomic realities and the divisions of the present world as valid in the Christ community shows a blatant disregard for Christ’s invitation. Among Christians, the first shall be the last and the least shall be the greatest. Service, not socioeconomic realities, determines the order at Christ’s table (Matt. 25:34–45).

2. It follows from Paul’s teaching that he considers it an abomination that some in the Christ community go hungry while others live a gluttonous lifestyle. Paul’s word about eating and drinking without consideration of the body speaks directly to the responsibility of the privileged for the nonprivileged. As followers of Christ, the privileged could not turn their responsibility into a mere theoretical principle and reduce it to a handout of their leftovers. Paul’s call goes to the core of what it means to be community—when one member suffers, every member suffers. When, therefore, Paul speaks about some who are ill and weak, even some who have died, he does not need to specify who they are or which group they belong to (the haves or the have-nots). The suffering that occurs in the community affects everyone. If it does not, they are not a true Christ community. When God has blessed one with means to help another, it is to empower the community. What God has given to the one is for the common good of the community (12:7; cf. Luke 12:48; John 6:11).

3. Paul’s emphasis on eating at home before the Lord’s Supper does not suggest that he desires to turn the meal into a mere liturgy disconnected from the dining experience. Rather, the community celebration of fellowship and worship, experienced daily during the evening meal, needed to reveal the presence of Christ and not look like a pagan feast. The sharing Paul calls for is the communal articulation of the caring of Christ. To examine oneself in light of Christ’s sacrifice means to request God’s wisdom for how one can express such self-giving. Put differently, to commemorate the Christ event through a common meal, even if it is a mere liturgical event, is a call to revisit the Christ follower’s call to self-sacrifice. Only in this way will Christians come to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (11:26).

4. Frequently celebrating the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46–47) functions as a powerful reminder and highlighting of the Christian faith’s content. Through the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine, Christ reminds his followers how to live their lives mimicking his self-giving. Paul does not allow his audience to reduce the meal to an expression of gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf only; he calls them to imitate Christ’s sacrificial lifestyle. When Jesus reinterpreted the Passover meal, he moved the meal’s emphasis from a celebration of what God had done to a celebration of what God was doing. The focus, then, is not on the unleavened bread but on the Christ event expressed through the community’s sharing of the one bread. Examining the significance of one’s faith claims for a Christian transformation of behavior is the only table manner (11:27) worthy of Christ’s invitation.

Illustrating the Text

The church and sacraments are meant to be status neutral.
Contrasting Concept: Show or describe a clip from a reality television show that involves celebrity contestants surviving or competing together or with “ordinary people” (e.g., Undercover Boss, The Apprentice, Survivor). The best clip will be one in which status or fame give no advantage (e.g., starting a fire, answering trivia, or navigating obstacles). Invite listeners to think about the appeal of seeing famous or powerful people robbed of their advantage and forced to compete outside their area of privilege or comfort. The type of status-free zone this passage describes for the Lord’s table is not the same thing people feel when watching celebrity reality shows. It is neither a favoritism toward the powerful and renowned nor a delight in their being humbled. In light of God’s grace we all have the same status: forgiven and accepted sons and daughters, adopted by means of the undeserved shedding of Jesus’s blood on our behalf. As we look around at one another, we ought to see what Christ sees: the absolute dereliction we all experience under the law and the absolute acceptance we all experience in the gospel.

Communion without compassion and charity is an unbiblical abomination.
Hymn: “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love.” This old standby is a convicting picture of the love that ought to mark Christian fellowship. Many listeners may have opinions on the song itself, but challenge them to think over the lyrics. Would a neutral observer be able to see the love of Christ in the way your church celebrates communion, or would it seem like a cold ritual? Would they see the oneness of communion lived out in the lobby, at congregational meetings, and throughout the week in a way that would be undeniably Christian in character?

Teaching the Text by Preben Vang, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Blood

The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:3 4), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.

The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).

Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).

The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).

During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).

Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).

The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.

Bread

Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils.

To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:1 2; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.

Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).

Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenant

A pact/compact or an agreement (Heb. berit). The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.”

The covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships.

Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally, the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath, judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

Cup

In the book of Psalms, “cup” signifies a person’s divinely appointed lot in life (16:5 6; 23:5). The “cup of salvation” (Ps. 116:13) alludes to the wine poured out as part of the thank offering (Num. 28:7–8).

The most important theological use is the mainly prophetic (but also psalmic [e.g., Ps. 75:8]) image of the cup of God’s wrath that wicked nations will drink (e.g., Isa. 51:17–23; Jer. 25:15–17, 28). The book of Revelation takes up this image (14:10; 16:19; 17:4; 18:6). This OT usage also stands behind the “cup” that Jesus must drink, to which he refers in the prediction of his death (Mark 10:38–39) and in his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:36; cf. John 18:11: “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”). On the cross, Jesus as the substitute for sinners bore God’s wrath.

Judgment

Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.

The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2 Chron. 24:24).

The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:7 8) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).

One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2 Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).

Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2 Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

Lord's Supper

The meal of remembrance instituted by Jesus Christ during the Passover celebration (Matt. 26:26 pars.) prior to his crucifixion. While with his disciples, Jesus took bread and broke it and said, “Take and eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26). After this, he took wine, gave thanks, and then gave it to them and said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, this breaking of bread and drinking of wine in his memory became a primary symbol of Christianity (1 Cor. 11:26). The apostle Paul had harsh things to say to the Corinthian church for inappropriately celebrating the Lord’s Supper, for some went hungry while others became drunk (1 Cor. 11:17 26), and thus the whole point of Jesus’ sacrificial death was lost.

Direct Matches

Body

The human body has its origin in the act of creation by God depicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “very good” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation (1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, in contrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as a prison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage. This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of human sexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriage relationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of the man and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where we find a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16) and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).

Old Testament. In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body to the dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3). The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of proper burial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a health regulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberate desecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving an enemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring of proper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, as exemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.

The Hebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be used of a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), though this word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”). This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/body distinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body” (whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body, not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within an overall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “the fruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf. Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to a male body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).

New Testament. Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), and the Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements of drink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart of the gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3). For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himself body and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt. 26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, which would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possible the inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).

The bodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark 16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers (e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor. 15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine and gospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they too will be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52), a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bible embraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physical creation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will be raised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess. 4:13–18).

In what is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor. 5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death he will not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothed with [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “away from the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication of bodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home with the Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leaving this earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in 1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies (e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable” and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (though gloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication is provided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, which could pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7), appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingest food and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).

Paul made use the “body” analogy for the character of the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26), viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependent members or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correct the self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christian community as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showed that their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at their suppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says that the believer’s “body” is united to Christ, making sexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believers are to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used a little differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18, 24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of the body (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction and rule. Believers are to present their “bodies” as a living sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom. 12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to the equation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind together make up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. See also Gestures.

Church

Terminology

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

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

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

The Nature of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacraments

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

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

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

Worship

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

Service and Organization

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

Covenant

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in the biblical material that affects our understanding of God, his relationship with his people (past, present, and future), and the structure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is not a unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of the Scriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and the function of covenant. This article highlights the covenant concept and the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the major biblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining “covenant.” What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as a pact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertainty regarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggested etymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers to the establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath, or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.” The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term is used in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes the terms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping with unilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant” root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhaps associating the covenant with a covenant meal.

If the concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, then the covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God and people is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treaties illustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record of negotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act of covenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations with solemn ratification of the terms.

The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counter to the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities to specific geographic territories first and was concerned with the inhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OT believers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimed him as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa. 40).

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

“Oath” is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functions at times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizes the liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut. 29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by just one party (Ezek. 17:13).

The word “testimony” refers to the contents of the two tablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at Mount Sinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “ark of the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimony in the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed upon the nation in covenant with Yahweh.

The term “word” can be understood in connection with covenant communication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) is viewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). The phrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and “perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideas within the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of the Lord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted with worthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God (Hos. 10:4).

Torah is a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah are found in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangement between God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated by the instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase “tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). God indicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them to stumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguided in their relationship with him.

Khesed is another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to a covenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it is also understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed is that characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently and faithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenant relationships despite the failure or success of the other party. The khesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keeps covenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David is stated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24, 28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for their lack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Common phrases. The most common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.” Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects a practice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tablet with a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod. 31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribed by the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phrase is the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals was part of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In a situation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treat them like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19). Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod. 6:4).

Faithfulness and loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keep a covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard, exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established (Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies the demonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen. 17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). God is obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12). “Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mental exercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action of remembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve and intervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenant infidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant” (Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “not faithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant” (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant” (Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

The Covenant Genre

We now turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or the covenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used by ancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nations and tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC and is derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East. The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from the Hittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), and the Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify four ancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. The intertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clans for various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, or peaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format were equally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is the arrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 or the arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2. The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princes who were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involved mutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationship established between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings 5:1–12.

3. The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, one inferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty was on the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerain agrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defend the vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existence of the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to take tribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agrees to a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor the suzerain with tribute and material goods.

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) The second part is the prologue, which contains a review of the past relationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an “I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7; 4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previous acts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal. The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instill some measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. In Hittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology that characterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal for obedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation for conquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing them limited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic that motivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and even death. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace of redemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and the privilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) The stipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are the expectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23; 6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations call for the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return political refugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. The heart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses of the OT.

(d) The deposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. This section instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary and directs the vassal to publicly read the document from one to four times per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regular reading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal in order to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

(f) The final part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. This section contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness and terrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf. Deut. 28–29).

4. The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature, is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctive difference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassal but rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. In this format the curse is directed against any third party that would oppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfully against the vassal.

Covenants in the Bible

Types of covenants. The material on covenant form, content, and structure comes into play when attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded in the Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initial discussions usually revolve around whether these covenants are conditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to this discussion, covenants should also be understood in light of which party is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, the obligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill the expectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation is placed upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to the vassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality in both treaty forms.

On this basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in light of the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinai established Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended to create a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant. Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate his relationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciously redeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelite life. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’s transgressions were considered covenant violations.

The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In the Abrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel with land, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animals in Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in which Yahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals, obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provide David and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant is first referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed more extensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate the nature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Some define it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, while others view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenant anticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimately facilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happening in connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a future time.

Covenant leadership positions. In addition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God in the OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, God established three key covenant leadership positions for the nation: prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection with the covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and function are detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

God provided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that it would not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surrounding nations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people and established the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded (Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit a Moses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwriting prophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did this by using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thus establishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case made by God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge, jury, and lawyer.

The priest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had a threefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediator of people before God and of God before people. This particular function of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of its work. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolution to disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worth noting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally, he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship and sacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean (Lev. 13–15).

The king was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship was not a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8) but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed to Abraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen. 35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of the kingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf. Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenant in the Old Testament. Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Covenant in the New Testament. Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

Discipline

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).

Heresy

The English word “heresy” comes from the Greek hairesis, which is used in the NT to refer to a sect, party, or school. It is used to describe the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5), and Christians are referred to in this way, although only by outsiders (24:5, 14; 28:22). Paul strongly condemns the tendency for Christian communities to separate into factions, and he even lists factions as an obvious act of the sinful nature (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; cf. Titus 3:10). When using this word, he seems primarily concerned with the fractious attitudes of people in the church who violate Christian unity rather than incorrect doctrine.

It is in the later NT writings that we see the word “heresy” used in connection with incorrect belief that is “destructive,” bringing “condemnation” to those that teach it (2 Pet. 2:1–3). The connotations from this passage—heresy as a false teaching—became the dominant meaning for the word. Perhaps the use of the word “heresy” in this fashion came from the common condemnations by the early church of both false teachings and schismatics who separated themselves from the wider Christian community.

As generally used today, the word “heresy” indicates a deviation from accepted Christian teaching and belief extensive enough to be considered an invalid and incompatible interpretation of the faith. Heretics (those who believe or expound heresies) claim an allegiance to the Christian faith, but they hold convictions that are perceived by the church universal to fundamentally alter the faith as received from the apostles.

Most heresies involve a misunderstanding of the person of Christ or the relations of the persons within the Trinity. For example, a group of early believers who followed the teacher Arius taught that Jesus was the “first creation” of God the Father, and that he was really only quasi-divine. This may seem like a subtle and irrelevant distinction to some, but it has the effect of making God ultimately unknown to the world, since the incarnation was not really God in the flesh, and Jesus is only another pale intermediary rather than true Lord. Councils of church leaders (bishops) declared Arianism incorrect at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, and thus it is considered a heresy.

There is general agreement among the branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant) about the falsehood of many heresies that have appeared in the history of Christianity, but there is still disagreement regarding some issues, as the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed Martin Luther a heretic in his lifetime. While the church certainly must remain eternally vigilant against the spread and acceptance of false and erroneous teachings, all too often the word “heresy” is used carelessly to reinforce the very divisions that Paul would have condemned.

Hunger

Rarely is hunger mentioned in the Bible as the simple desire for the next regular meal (Mark 11:12; Acts 10:10; 1 Cor. 11:21, 34). Normally it is a hunger associated with physical weakness from the lack of food and often with long-term hardship such as famine (2 Kings 7:12; Ps. 107:5; Matt. 4:2; Mark 8:3; Luke 15:7; 2 Cor. 11:27). In the ancient world it took much harder work and a large portion of the workforce to produce enough food. And compared to the present, the whole enterprise was much more subject to fluctuating conditions of drought, blight, insects, and disease, in addition to the threat of warfare, whether from the raiding and destroying of crops (Judg. 6:3–4) or from siege (2 Kings 7:12). Hunger is not an inconvenient wait until the next full meal but rather a threat to health and life.

God cares for the hungry (Pss. 107:9; 146:7; Prov. 10:3; Isa. 49:10; Luke 1:53), and it is righteous to do likewise (Isa. 58:7, 10; Ezek. 18:7, 16; Matt. 25:35). Some provision was made for the hungry. While there was a small tax to provide food for certain disadvantaged parties (Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows [Deut. 14:27–29; 26:12–13]), other provision required that harvesters leave certain remains for others to glean (24:17–22). Hunger was not simply a matter of bad luck or victimhood, as it may result from laziness or lack of prudence (Prov. 19:15).

Lord's Supper

The meal of remembrance instituted by Jesus Christ during the Passover celebration (Matt. 26:26 pars.) prior to his crucifixion. While with his disciples, Jesus took bread and broke it and said, “Take and eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26). After this, he took wine, gave thanks, and then gave it to them and said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, this breaking of bread and drinking of wine in his memory became a primary symbol of Christianity (1 Cor. 11:26). The apostle Paul had harsh things to say to the Corinthian church for inappropriately celebrating the Lord’s Supper, for some went hungry while others became drunk (1 Cor. 11:17–26), and thus the whole point of Jesus’ sacrificial death was lost. See also Last Supper.

New Covenant

Terminology

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

The Covenant Genre

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

Covenants in the Bible

Poor

Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor” in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern for the poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (15:11).

The Poor

Old Testament. All sections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions and warnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithes and offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisions that allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they had not planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’s allowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8, 15, 23).

Favor was given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25; 31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7; Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor were strongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OT often warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasis that God is their defender (2 Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss. 109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person made a vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge of unfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong (Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workers because they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not as slaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were to be judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppression because of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job 34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).

In addition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year or Jubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of the land were permitted to gather food from the land, including the fields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man became poor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by a family member, the land would be returned to the man during the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced to submit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).

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

Kindness to the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love of God. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindness toward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question the authenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17–18).

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

Orphans

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

Widows

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

Testament

Terminology

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

The Covenant Genre

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

Covenants in the Bible

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is mentioned in the definition.

Affliction

Affliction is a condition of physical, mental, or spiritual distress, or the cause of suffering. Afflictions may be a variety of temporal, physical sufferings, such as infertility (Gen. 25:32; 1 Sam. 1:11), injustice and toil (Gen. 31:42), slavery (Exod. 1:12; 3:7, 17; 4:31; Deut. 26:6–7; Neh. 9:9), military oppression (Judg. 2:18; 10:18), loss (Ruth 1:21), displacement and mocking (2 Sam. 16:12), disease and disorders (Mark 3:10; 5:29, 34; Luke 7:21; John 5:4; Acts 28:8), and famine (Acts 7:11). Affliction may be mental or spiritual, arising from the prospects or effects of physical afflictions, feeling the futility of life (Eccles. 1:13), or concern for others in their afflictions (Isa. 63:9; 2 Cor. 2:4).

There are several different causes and reasons for affliction, but there is no simple formula for determining the cause of one’s afflictions, as Job reminds us. Clearly, Job is blameless (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3), but his friends carry on wrongly in their assumptions that his sins are to blame. The agents of affliction include God (2 Kings 17:20; Nah. 1:12), Satan and/or demons (Job 1:12; Acts 5:16), other people (Judg. 10:8; 2 Thess. 1:6), oneself (1 Kings 18:28), or the general condition of life (Job 5:7).

The reasons for affliction also vary. One reason might be called “no reason,” in that “man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7). Troubles, afflictions, and sorrow just happen. In retrospect, this is a condition of living in a cursed world (Gen. 3). But this is a general consequence for the whole human race, not a punishment directed at a specific sin. The widespread afflictions of the curse appear random. In various forms they prevent us from turning to easy living as a refuge from broken relationships and therefore force us to look elsewhere. The intent is that we look to God (see Hos. 5:15). Multiple specific reasons, however, may lie behind any particular affliction. They include punishment for sin (Deut. 29:22), often to induce repentance leading to restoration (Hos. 5:15; Zech. 10:9; 1 Cor. 11:30). Affliction may be dealt out by people as they sin against others (1 Sam. 1:7; 2 Sam. 16:12; 2 Thess. 1:6). One’s own choices may have natural consequences (Prov. 11:24; 13:20; 19:9, 15; 22:3), or consequences come due to a lack of leadership (Zech. 10:2). Some result from being associated with those going through afflictions (Num. 14:28–35; 1 Kings 2:26), suffering afflictions due to following Christ (Matt. 13:21; John 15:18–20; Acts 20:23), or feeling empathy for the afflicted (2 Cor. 2:4). Other afflictions are given as training, prevention, or refining (Isa. 48:10; Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 12:7; Heb. 12:5–13). Suffering affliction may also be substitutionary, on behalf of others (Isa. 53:4–7; and the substitutionary atonement of Christ generally).

In response to others’ afflictions, we are called to sympathy, compassion, comfort, and justice. Appropriate responses to our own afflictions range from patient endurance for the cause of Christ (James 5:11) to lamenting (the psalms and Christ’s example, Matt. 27:46).

Agrapha

Sayings attributed to Jesus that are outside the NT Gospels. The term is Greek for “unwritten things,” though it is used to indicate that these alleged sayings were written not in the canonical Gospels but in other sources. Agrapha from Jesus appear in the apocryphal Gospels, the church fathers, and in NT books other than the four Gospels (e.g., Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 7:10; 11:23–25). The authenticity of the many sayings outside the NT is uncertain; each one should be judged on its own merit. The indication in John 21:25 of the wide array of Jesus’ deeds and sayings known in early Christianity should lead one to a point somewhere between blind acceptance of all agrapha and the outright rejection of them.

Beans

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Book of Amos

Amos is largely concerned with judgment oracles against the nations, particularly Judah and Israel. Memorable for the numerical parallelisms that begin a series of speeches against various nations (“For three sins of X . . . , even for four . . . [1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6]), the book also concludes with a powerful anticipation of the restoration of Israel and “David’s fallen tent,” which the NT understands to point to Jesus, David’s greater son.

Historical Background

The superscription pinpoints Amos’s prophecy to a time “two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel” (1:1). The precise date of the earthquake is unknown, but we can approximately date the reign of Uzziah to 769–733 BC and of Jeroboam II to 784–748 BC, so it appears that Amos operated sometime in the confluence of Uzziah’s reign with Jeroboam’s (769–748 BC).

The era of these two kings was a time of great material prosperity (2 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 26:6–8). Assyria was relatively weak, though it had conquered one of Israel’s closer enemies, Syria, with its capital at Damascus. In the absence of these or other major rivals, Israel and Judah could grow. However, along with economic growth came spiritual confusion and ethical darkness, which Amos addresses.

Although Amos preaches during a period of prosperity for Israel, he foresees God’s coming judgment against their sins in the form of a powerful enemy (3:11; 5:3, 27; 6:6–14; 7:9, 17; 9:4). This enemy would turn out to be Assyria, which would begin its powerful westward expansion under Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and eventually incorporate Israel under Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in 722 BC. Judah would find itself under the shadow of this emergent superpower.

Amos came from Tekoa, a town just five miles south of Bethlehem, which itself is four miles south of Jerusalem. Although he was from Judah, his ministry was primarily directed toward the northern kingdom, prompting a northern priest, Amaziah, to tell him to go back to where he came from (7:10–17). Amos describes himself as a shepherd who tended flocks (1:1; 7:15) and as one who took care of sycamore-fig trees (7:14). Debate has been incessant about whether this points to his placement in the lower or upper classes of society.

Literary Considerations and Outline

The book of Amos contains a number of oracles, mostly judgment, but some salvation. These oracles are directed toward the surrounding nations (Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab) and then Judah and Israel, and in that order. The order, beginning with foreign nations and then moving to Judah and finally Israel, is intentional. The original audience that Amos addresses was located in Judah and especially in Israel. One can imagine a sympathetic audience to the declaration of violent judgment on the nations, but then Amos skillfully moves to God’s own people. As the following structure demonstrates, Israel was the main audience that received the most sustained chastisement:

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Introduction to the Message (1:2)

III. The Prophetic Oracles (1:3–6:14)

A. Oracles of Judgment against the Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:5)

1. Syria (represented by Damascus; 1:3–5)

2. Philistia (represented by Gaza; 1:6–8)

3. Tyre (1:9–10)

4. Edom (1:11–12)

5. Ammon (1:13–15)

6. Moab (2:1–3)

7. Judah (2:4–5)

B. Oracles of Judgment against Israel (2:6–6:14)

IV. The Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:15)

Notable in the final section is the concluding oracle, which is one of the few salvation oracles in the book. Amos 9:11–15 in particular looks forward to the future restoration of Israel: the restoration of the house of David, which is pictured as a renewal of David’s fallen tent.

Theological Message

Amos has a message of divine judgment against God’s people, particularly those in the northern kingdom. God is sovereign and will see to the appropriate punishment. God controls the nations, so he can raise up an enemy to bring destruction on Israel as well as other offending nations. Although the nations are the tool of his anger, there should be no mistake that it is God himself who is behind their punishment (1:4; 3:2, 14; 9:4).

The punishment is for idolatry and ethical violations, particularly social injustice. God’s people worshiped false gods (2:8; 5:5, 26; 7:9–13; 8:14). Also, the wealthy classes indulged in sins and oppressed the lower classes (2:7–8; 5:12; 8:6).

Amos is also well known as the first to use the language of the “day of the Lord” (5:18–20). Although this appears to be the first mention of this day in Scripture, the way Amos refers to it indicates that it was already known in his society. The people thought that the day of the Lord would be good for them, but Amos says that because of their sins, it will be horrible. The day of the Lord is the day of God’s coming as a warrior to judge sinners.

New Testament Connections

The NT shares Amos’s concern for social justice (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:22; James 2:1–10). More specifically, Amos is quoted in the NT a number of times, showing that the NT authors believe that his expectations for the future are coming to fulfillment in their time (compare Amos 5:15 with Rom. 12:9; Amos 5:25 with Acts 7:24). Most interesting is the early church’s understanding of Amos 9:11–12, quoted by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:16–17. Here one of the leaders, James, argues that the addition of the Gentiles into the people of God fulfills God’s promise to reunify Israel.

Book of Jeremiah

Jeremiah is the second of the Major Prophets, after Isaiah and before Ezekiel, an order determined by the chronology of the beginning of their prophetic work. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were basically contemporaries, but the latter began his ministry after Jeremiah. The book of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets (21,835 words), compared to Ezekiel (18,730 words) and Isaiah (16,932 words). Readers ancient and modern are attracted to the book not only by its stirring message but also because Jeremiah is the most transparent of all the prophetic personalities, often referred to as the Weeping Prophet.

Historical Background

Authorship and date. The superscription of the book announces that it contains “the words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin” (1:1). His prophetic ministry is then described as taking place between the thirteenth year of King Josiah and the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, equivalent to 626–586 BC, a period of great turbulence (see next section). Chapters 40–44 narrate events in the period immediately after the fall of Jerusalem.

On the one hand, there is no good reason to question the existence of the historical Jeremiah or the attribution to him of the prophecy that bears his name. On the other hand, the text indicates that the book was not written at one sitting but rather is the product of a process. Chapter 36 mentions that the prophet wrote down his sermons in 605 BC, and when King Jehoiakim burned the scroll, the narrator relates that Jeremiah again dictated them to Baruch, who wrote them all down, and Jeremiah added many more oracles (36:32). The book describes a close relationship between Jeremiah and his associate Baruch. It is possible that the stories about Jeremiah were written down and added by this close friend.

Ancient Near Eastern historical context. When Jeremiah started his prophetic work in 626 BC, the world was undergoing major political change. Assyria had been the dominant superpower for the preceding centuries. It had incorporated the northern kingdom of Israel into its vast empire in 722 BC, and Judah had been forced to pay tribute. In 626 BC, however, Babylon began its rebellion against Assyria. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, now king of Babylon, threw off the yoke of Assyrian bondage, and over what was almost two decades he eradicated Assyria and inherited the empire.

In 626 BC Josiah was king of Judah. His father, Amon, and his grandfather Manasseh had been evil kings, promoting false worship. But Josiah served Yahweh, and soon before Jeremiah began his work, the king began to purify the religious institutions of Judah (2 Chron. 34:3b–7). Jeremiah’s early ministry then occurred in an environment that would find support from the royal court. In 609 BC, however, Josiah tried to block Necho of Egypt from reinforcing the remnants of Assyria against Babylon and in the process lost his life. Although the Egyptians were unsuccessful in helping Assyria survive, they were able to exercise control over Judah and placed a pro-Egyptian king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. Even so, by 605 BC Egypt could not stop Babylon under their new king, Nebuchadnezzar, from demanding that Judah be their vassal (Dan. 1:1–3). Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon in 597 BC. By the time the avenging Babylonian army arrived, Jehoiakim was gone, replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The latter was promptly deported to Babylon and replaced by Zedekiah. The book of Jeremiah records that both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were determined opponents of the prophet. In any case, Zedekiah too eventually rebelled against Babylon, and this time Nebuchadnezzar not only captured and exiled many leaders but also systematically destroyed the city. He then incorporated Judah into his empire as a province and appointed a Judean governor, Gedaliah. Jeremiah 40–44 describes how Jewish insurgents assassinated Gedaliah and killed off the Babylonian garrison troops. Many of the remaining Jewish people then fled to Egypt against God’s will as announced by Jeremiah, who was forced to go with them.

These events provide the background to the prophetic oracles and the actions narrated in the book of Jeremiah. Some of Jeremiah’s words and actions are specifically dated to these events, while others are not dated.

Text

Jeremiah is one of the few books of the OT that present a significant text-critical issue. The main Hebrew text (the MT) is clearly different from the Greek text. The latter is about one-eighth shorter than the former, lacking about 2,700 words. In addition, the order of the book is different. The oracles against the foreign nations are chapters 46–51 in the Hebrew but are found right after 25:13 in the Greek. The DSS attest to early Hebrew manuscripts that reflect the Greek tradition, and therefore we cannot attribute the difference to translation error or intentional rearrangement. A better solution is to remember that the book of Jeremiah as we know it in the Hebrew is the result of a long history of composition. The Greek text may reflect an earlier shorter version. The longer Hebrew text then represents the final authoritative edition of the book and is rightly used for modern translations.

Literary Types

The book as a whole is a compendium of prophetic oracles and stories about Jeremiah. The following distinct literary types are found in the book.

Poetical prophetic oracles of judgment and salvation. Chapters 2–25 are composed primarily of poetic oracles of judgment directed toward God’s people. They are God’s words to his people uttered by the prophet. Chapters 46–51 are also judgment oracles, but these are directed toward foreign nations such as Egypt and Babylon. Although salvation oracles are found in the first part of the book, chapters 30–31 form a striking collection of such oracles, the best known of which is the anticipation of the new covenant (31:31–34).

Poetical confessions/laments. Jeremiah’s confessions are in the form of laments in which he complains about the burdens brought on by his prophetic task. These laments have many similarities with laments in the psalms, including elements such as an invocation, a declaration of innocence, an invocation against enemies, and divine response. While the laments have a certain ritual form, there is no good reason to deny that they authentically represent the emotions of the prophet. The confessions/laments are found in 11:18–23; 12:1–6; 15:15–21; 17:14–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–17.

Prose oracles. Jeremiah’s oracles come in the form of prose as well as poetry. Similarities have been drawn between these oracles (a good example is 7:1–8:3) and the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Some want to use this similarity to deny a connection with the historical Jeremiah, but there is no good reason to deny that Jeremiah could reflect the theology of this foundational book.

Prose biographical material. A significant part of the prose material may be described as biographical, in that it relates events in Jeremiah’s life (chaps. 26–29; 34–45). These descriptions often carry a prophetic oracle. It is likely that these biographical descriptions were written by someone other than Jeremiah (Baruch?).

Prophetic sign-acts. Perhaps a special category of biographical material is the description of events and acts of Jeremiah’s that carry prophetic significance. A good example is 13:1–11, which narrates Jeremiah’s trip to the Euphrates River to bury his dirty underwear.

Outline

I. Introduction and Jeremiah’s Call (1:1–19)

II The First Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry (2:1–25:14)

A Sermons, oracles, and sign-acts (2:1–24:10)

B Summary (25:1–14)

III. The Second Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry: Judgment and the Fall of Jerusalem (25:15–51:64)

A. Judgment against the nations (25:15–38)

B. Stories about Jeremiah and reports of oracles (26:1–29:32)

C. The Book of Consolation: Salvation oracles (30:1–33:26)

D. Stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment (34:1–38:28)

E. Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)

F. Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)

G. Oracles against foreign nations (46:1–51:64)

IV. Epilogue (52:1–34)

Structure

The book of Jeremiah does not have a clearly delineated structure. In this respect, Jeremiah is not unique among the prophets. Nonetheless, we may still make some general observations about the shape of the book and its large sections, even though we cannot always account for why one oracle follows another. When they are given chronological indicators, they are not arranged sequentially.

There are reasons to think that chapter 25 plays a pivotal role in the book, though it may be that this was more explicit in an earlier form of the book (when the oracles against the foreign nations followed immediately after it; cf. the Greek version). Even so, 25:1–14 summarizes the message of chapters 2–24, and then 25:15–38 announces judgment against the nations. Chapter 1, then, is an introduction to the book, with its account of the prophet’s commissioning, and chapter 52 is an epilogue describing the fall of Jerusalem.

Within these two large sections we can recognize blocks of material. Chapter 1 introduces the prophet, recounts his call, and presents two undated oracles that serve to introduce important themes of the book.

Chapters 2–24 follow as a collection of sermons, poetic and prose oracles, and prophetic sign-acts that are undated. Indeed, it is often difficult to tell when one oracle ends and another begins. It is likely that these are the oracles that come from the first part of the prophet’s ministry, that is, his first scroll, described in chapter 36.

After chapter 25 summarizes the first part of the book and turns attention to the judgment against the nations, a block of prose material follows consisting of stories about Jeremiah as well as reports of oracles (chaps. 26–29).

Chapters 30–33 are a collection of salvation oracles, a break from the heavy barrage of judgment in the book up to this point. Traditionally, these chapters are known as the Book of Consolation. Chapters 30–31 are poetic oracles, while chapters 32–33 are prose.

Chapters 34–38 return to prose stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment. This section culminates with the first account of the fall of Jerusalem.

The next section, chapters 39–44, gives the distressing account of the exile and the continuing failures on the part of those who stay in the land with Jeremiah. They end up in Egypt because of their lack of confidence in God’s ability to take care of them. Chapter 45 is an oracle directed toward Baruch, Jeremiah’s associate.

The book ends with a collection of oracles against foreign nations (chaps. 46–51), culminating with a lengthy prophetic statement directed toward Babylon. The book concludes with a second account of the fall of Jerusalem.

Theological Message

Jeremiah is a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas, however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant to describe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is a divinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises and calls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research has found that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept to ancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers and those of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful, sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompanied by curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives a reward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.

There is a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people (Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod. 19–24]; David [2 Sam. 7]), but most relevant for our understanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed in Deuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26) and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).

Jeremiah and many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of the covenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey the law. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and live in conformity with God’s will or else the curses of the covenant will come into effect.

Jeremiah’s oracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers, particularly in the matter of worshipping false gods (Jer. 10–11). The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the most extreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that are related to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer. 31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the old covenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense, and more intimate.

New Testament Connections

Jeremiah anticipates the founding of a new and better covenant, and the NT witnesses to the fulfillment of this expectation. As he passed the cup to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20 [cf. 1 Cor. 11:24–25]). The cup, representing Christ’s death, functions as the sign of the new covenant. The point is that the new covenant is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ.

The new covenant replaces the old. This is the argument of the book of Hebrews, which twice cites the relevant passage in Jeremiah to make the point (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17; see also 2 Cor. 3). According to the author of Hebrews, the old covenant failed not because of a defect in God or his instrument but because of the people (Heb. 8:8). They consistently broke that covenant by disobeying the law explicated in the covenant with Moses. As a result, as Jeremiah himself announced, the people would be expelled from the land (reversing the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant), bringing to conclusion the monarchy, which is a provision of the Davidic covenant.

Communion

(1) The word “communion” (Gk. koinōnia and cognates) is used to describe the fellowship of God’s people in experience and action. Paul uses the terminology with reference to the believer’s fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), which may result in sharing Christ’s sufferings (Phil. 3:10). John uses koinōnia to speak of Christian fellowship shared among believers, rooted in God’s fellowship with Christ (1 John 1:3, 6–7). Early believers shared within the faith community (Acts 2:42; Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4). (2) Communion, or the Eucharist, celebrates fellowship between Christ and his people (1 Cor. 10:16) by participating in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34). See also Lord’s Supper.

False Worship

Devotion or service that is improper. Worship, whether false or true, generally consists of two aspects that are distinct but not necessarily separate: (1) the performance of certain rituals, including sacrifice, circumcision, baptism, and so forth; (2) the attitudes and activities that reflect devotion to a person or object. The first aspect shows worship as ritual, consisting of formal, regulated elements. The second aspect shows worship as devotion, consisting of a life of piety. False worship occurs when a worshiper fails in one or both of these aspects.

Forms of False Worship

The Bible describes false worship occurring in three different ways: (1) the worshiper demonstrates devotion to anything other than God, (2) the worshiper performs a ritual contrary to its instructed observance, and (3) the worshiper performs a ritual while leading a life of unrepentant disobedience to God.

The most severe form of false worship is when a worshiper demonstrates devotion to anything other than God. This type of false worship may include worship as ritual in which a rite or ceremony is performed directly for another god. Some rituals are specifically mentioned in the Bible: passing children through fire (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6), consorting with shrine prostitutes (esp. Hos. 4:14), and offering sacrifices to idols (esp. Lev. 17:7). This type of false worship may also include attitudes and actions that demonstrate a higher degree of devotion to something other than the true God. This devotion may be to another god or object, even material wealth (cf. Col. 3:5, where Paul equates greed with idolatry).

The second form of false worship involves performing a ritual contrary to its instructed observance. At Mount Sinai, God gives a code of laws that regulate the practice of making sacrifices and offerings, confining them to certain personnel (priests and Levites), certain circumstances (cleanness), certain animals or plants (depending on the sacrifice and the wealth of the offerer), certain times (Passover, Day of Atonement), and a certain location (tent of meeting, later the temple). On occasion, the law requires death as the penalty for failure to observe the rituals correctly (Exod. 30:20–38; Lev. 10:1–3; 16:2). This type of false worship is basically limited to the OT because of the highly regulated and ritualistic nature of Israel’s worship. Although the NT contains rituals of worship, there is no indication of a censured method of observation, only of an improper attitude (1 Cor. 11:27–33).

The third form of false worship involves performing a ritual while living a life of unrepentant disobedience to God. The Bible addresses this type of false worship in several passages (1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1; Amos 4–5; Mic. 6). They demonstrate that even if the ritual is performed correctly and toward the true God rather than another god, a sinful lifestyle of the worshiper will invalidate the worship. Worship is not automatically accepted simply because it is performed in the right way by the right official at the right time for the right God; it has ethical demands (esp. Isa. 1:11–23; Jer. 14:7–10; Amos 4:4–13; 5:21–27). The prophets make it clear that God not only rejects worship from wicked, unrepentant worshipers but also abhors it (esp. Isa. 1:11–23; Amos 5:21–27).

Ritual and Ethical Aspects of False Worship

Regardless of the form of false worship, God takes it seriously. Ritual and ethical aspects of worship are both important. The deaths of Nadab and Abihu provide a good example of the importance of the ritual aspects of worship; they died because they performed a ritual contrary to its prescribed manner (Lev. 10:1). The text does not connect their death to some ethical failing but rather states that they profaned God by their ritual disobedience (cf. 10:1–3).

On other occasions, the lack of proper ritual observance accompanies serious ethical failings. For instance, Hophni and Phinehas committed two great transgressions. First, they performed the sacrifices contrary to regulation for their selfish gain, falling short both ritually and ethically. Second, they committed acts of fornication at the place of worship (1 Sam. 2:13–17, 22). The judgment upon them was a result of both transgressions. Malachi rebukes the Israelites of his day because the animals that they brought for sacrifice, being diseased or disabled, were unacceptable according to regulation (Mal. 1:7–14). The ritual transgression revealed their lack of devotion to God, which was reflected in their ethical failings as well (2:8–12).

On the other hand, the Bible emphasizes the priority of the ethical aspects of worship over the ritual. When Saul does not wait for Samuel as Samuel commanded him but instead makes an offering before Samuel arrives, Samuel rebukes Saul because of his disobedience to Samuel’s instruction (delivered as a word of the Lord), not because of his method for carrying out the ritual (1 Sam. 15:22). When Jeremiah speaks of the covenant at Mount Sinai, he emphasizes God’s demand for devotion instead of the ritual observances (Jer. 7:22–23).

Other passages show that proper worship is possible even without a ritual element. Micah defines proper worship without ritual elements, but purely in ethical terms (Mic. 6:8). When asked about the proper place of worship, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that the location is irrelevant, only that worship must occur in spirit and truth (John 4:19–24).

Idolatry

The most serious and most widespread form of false worship is idolatry. In a technical sense, idolatry is creating a physical representation of a deity. In a more general sense, idolatry involves any sign of devotion to anything other than the one true God. Idolatry in the OT consists of both making an image of God and making images of other deities. Both practices are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, which are a succinct presentation of God’s ethical demands. The incident of the golden calf is a paradigmatic case of idolatry. Israel created a physical representation of the God who brought them up from Egypt (Exod. 32:1–8). Jeroboam followed this example by erecting two golden calves in Israel, again as images of the God who brought Israel up from Egypt (1 Kings 12:25–33). Although these cases involve an image of God, idolatry is usually closely connected with the worship of other gods (1 Kings 14:9; 2 Kings 17:7–12; 22:17). Idolatry is one of the main reasons for the exile of both the northern and the southern kingdoms (2 Kings 17:7–12; Isa. 2:8–22; Jer. 1:14–16).

Gestures

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

Head

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clothes and Shoes

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

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

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

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

Prophetic Gestures

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

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

Last Supper

According to the Gospels and Paul, Jesus had a final meal with his closest followers the night before his crucifixion, which is remembered as the “Last Supper” (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; cf. John 13:1–30, which mentions the meal but describes and focuses on Jesus washing his disciples’ feet and elaborates on the betrayal by Judas Iscariot). The Synoptic and Pauline accounts of the meal fit into two distinct groups according to their representation in the NT: Matthew/Mark and Luke/1 Corinthians. The unique aspects of Luke/1 Corinthians include “do this in remembrance of me,” the “new covenant in my blood,” and “which is poured out for you.” Matthew/Mark include Jesus’ command to “take” the bread, his giving “thanks” before taking up the cup, and his referring to the cup as “my blood of the covenant” and his blood poured out for “many.”

Two further issues involve when this meal took place and whether it was a Passover meal. According to the Gospels, Jesus was crucified on a Friday (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31, 42). However, in the Synoptic Gospels the supper was a Passover meal (Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12–16; Luke 22:7–15), but John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:31 imply that the trial and crucifixion took place before Passover. It may be that John is correct, and Jesus had a quasi-Passover meal ahead of the actual Passover because he knew that he would not live long enough to celebrate it. Or perhaps the Synoptics are correct, and John altered the chronology in order to have Jesus crucified on the same day the Passover lambs were sacrificed, thus making a theological point about Jesus as the Lamb of God. In any event, the meal was symbolic of the new exodus, the renewal of the covenant, and the atonement that Jesus would achieve through his death.

In the early church this commemorative meal became an integral part of the fellowship and worship of the first Christians. It was variously referred to as giving thanks (lit., “Eucharist,” [from the Greek word for “thanks”]) (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17, 19; 1 Cor. 11:24), “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11), “communion” (1 Cor. 10:16 KJV), the “Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21), the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), and a “love feast” (Jude 12). See also Lord’s Supper.

Love Feast

The “love feast” (agapē) was a common meal shared by early Christians in conjunction with their celebration of the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper. The term occurs in Jude 12 and, in some manuscripts, 2 Pet. 2:13. This type of gathering for fellowship evidently was a common feature of early Christianity. Jude exhorts the community to which he writes to rid itself of the immoral, godless people who “are blemishes at your love feasts.” A similar group appears to be infiltrating the “love feast” referred to in 2 Pet. 2:13. In 1 Cor. 11:17–34 is described some form of a common meal that included the Eucharist (cf. Acts 20:7), and it is likely that the Eucharist was very much a part of the love feasts mentioned in Jude and 2 Peter. Outside the NT, there is evidence in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, in the early second century, that the Eucharist and love feast were held together. Ignatius says that the bishop must be present for both the feast (agapē) and baptism (Ign. Smyrn. 8).

Further into the second century, a distinction appears to be drawn between the Eucharist and the love feast. It is not clear whether the meal described in Did. 9–10 is the Eucharist or the love feast. Some think that the thanksgiving offered over the cup and the bread reflects the pattern of a love feast rather than the Eucharist, since it is the opposite of the sequence in the NT (Mark 14:22–23; cf. Luke 22:17–19). The phrase “after you have had your fill” (Did. 10.1), if interpreted literally, could also indicate a common meal. Yet Did. 14.1 clearly sets forth the celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday. Interestingly, Did. 14.2 contains an injunction, likely inspired by Matt. 5:23–24, to reconcile with another believer if need be before participating in the ritual. Justin Martyr records a regular Sunday service in which the Eucharist was celebrated following the reading of Scripture and a homily. In his description, found in First Apology, the Eucharist is clearly not a meal. Some suggest that the love feast occurred after the service of word and table. At that point the wealthy came with food for a communal meal with the poor. Tertullian, in the late second century, affirms that the love feast definitely benefited the poor.

Maranatha

Paul uses this term in 1 Cor. 16:22 (KJV; see NIV mg.) when closing that letter. “Maranatha” is actually two Aramaic words, marana tha, meaning “Our Lord, come.” Some suggest that the term should be divided as maran atha, which would mean “Our Lord has come.” This phrase also occurs in the early Christian writing the Didache (10.6) in a liturgical context. Suggestions regarding how to divide and thus translate the term are primarily decided on a contextual basis. Two similar passages suggest that eschatological hope may be a key factor. Near the end of Revelation, the author writes, “Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20). Also, Paul, discussing the Lord’s Supper, refers to proclaiming the Lord’s death “until he comes” (in 1 Cor. 11:26). Both of these references are in Greek, but they suggest the future aspect to the early Christian’s hope for Christ’s return, which fits with translating “Maranatha” as “Come, O Lord.” The use of an Aramaic formula indicates an early reference to Jesus in a way normally reserved for God.

Myrtle Tree

Ordinance

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

Christian Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orphan

The Poor

Orphans

Widows

Paul

A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel to Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9), but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed his letters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Roman citizens had three names; the last name was the family name, called the “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first and middle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus (Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name [13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name because group identity was more important in the first-century Mediterranean world than individual recognition. For example, when speaking publicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostle to the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”; instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, a student of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embedded in his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even those categories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also a Roman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimed that he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greek letters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-free gospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he? What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previous life in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he one of the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a follower of the historical Jesus?

Paul’s Life

Paul as a converted Pharisee. Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Pharisees were a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as the means of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed that they should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique was their emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended only for Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests were required to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate (Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So the Pharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to show God how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4). Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience brought God’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established many traditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance. To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of the Pharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that no one was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—a zeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obvious offenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zeal for the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only in Jerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts 8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6). Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionable about this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact, Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignore members of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts 5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps it was Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he had died a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul to imprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason, Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proof of his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).

After Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed: his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul left Pharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17). Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law was replaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumor spread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Why the sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—the glorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. The resurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing, death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ (Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-world event for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2 Cor. 5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ. Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during the Christophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpreted Christ’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as a prophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-time vision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal. 1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospel to the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24). God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul the apostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ages has come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

Paul’s ministry. By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can be divided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry (AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” as we have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about his activities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for a while and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal. 1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus, evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas brought him to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26). In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spent most of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching the gospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of the third decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel from prison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another two to three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for a brief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment in Rome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.

During his itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him to free cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth). Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunities for ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents. Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided a better chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabas covered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) and Anatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeys Paul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were small and provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of great economic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In the midst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among a variety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts had worshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrifices at many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religious festivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). After believing the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churches turned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one God quickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’s converts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings for patron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperial cult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for their newly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civic leaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41; Phil. 1:27–30; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul often was run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message that threatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24; Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activities eventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of time before his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up with him (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoner or a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until the day he died.

Paul’s Gospel

The sources of Paul’s gospel. Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literary Gospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not a disciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed his earthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paul get his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oral traditions about Jesus from other Christians (1 Cor. 15:1–7). For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper from those who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a major source of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the Holy Spirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8) and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to the Christophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations of Christ as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). This gave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospel preeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw life experiences as a resource for the gospel (2 Cor. 12:7–10). As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insights with his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me” (2 Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing the gospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1 Cor. 4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of Jesus Christ was the gospel according to Paul.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection of Jesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrection of Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed. Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vain because believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope of life after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1 Cor. 15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphors drawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’s work on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as “justification”/“righteousness,” “law,” and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners are justified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications of Christ’s death in religious terms, using words such as “sacrifice,” “sin,” “propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrifice of atonement”), and “temple,” which would make sense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from the world of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,” and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedience of Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms to describe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the “reconciliation” that came through the “victory” of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”

Paul also relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work of God in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divine status to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’s chosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were the elect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paul affirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only through the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1 Thess. 4:7–8). Paul believed that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about the end of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia (“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, the person and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paul interpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’s gospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition, and religious experience.

A way of life. For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way of life. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting his sacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant following Christ by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paul believed that he experienced the cross of Christ every time he endured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time he suffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified life that Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel was the divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is what happened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen to all his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In fact, Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that God would finish what he had started: the perfecting of his converts until the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of every believer (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts needed to imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the Holy Spirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now and then from their apostle.

Paul’s Letters

Paul sent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts of his situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and address problems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen letters of Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groups of churches (Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2 Thessalonians) and four to individuals (1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon).

Paul the apostle. In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending his apostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel. Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved to be called “apostle,” since he had not followed the historical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1 Cor. 15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decided to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, they established the following criterion: the candidate must have been a follower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22). Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying that there could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision to recognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all? Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve, but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas, James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1 Cor. 15:5–9; Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causing trouble in the churches (2 Cor. 11:13), some even carrying “letters of recommendation” (2 Cor. 3:1). But only those who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned by him to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1 Cor. 9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when the commission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’s converts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle. They were the proof of his apostleship.

Although Paul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidence of his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentile converts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom. 15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they were keeping the traditions that he had taught them (1 Cor. 11:2). Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement to keep up the good work (most of 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy are exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a more detailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters to correct major problems within his churches. For example, some of the Galatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal. 4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strange practices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Some of the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2 Thess. 3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued with all kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes, idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing false theological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theology as well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about life after death, end times, and the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13–18; 2 Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed, among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the last days (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to send his lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticated theological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not start and had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authority of his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul operated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentile members.

Church unity. Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used several metaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lord and one faith should form one church. He described the church as a temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and a body—his favorite metaphor (1 Cor. 12:12–27). He warned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoral behavior (1 Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children when they refused to obey him as their father (1 Cor. 3:14–21) or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy, Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed by prejudice and threatened by sickness (1 Cor. 11:17–34). To him, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meant that Christ was divided (1 Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic, religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differences evident in one of the most diverse collections of people in the first-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of a unified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle to the Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ was indispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering among his Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves like siblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his mission trip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospel brought down every wall that divides humanity because all people need salvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).

Conclusion

Paul was a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, a theologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, a prisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of three different men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitious writer. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He saw more of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of the longest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was a faithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressible troublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or less than the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Pauline Letters

Paul’s Life

Paul’s Gospel

Paul’s Letters

Conclusion

Pine Tree

Plants

Poverty

The Poor

Orphans

Widows

Preach

In the early church, preaching often took place in a missionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive variety of words is used to describe preaching to unbelievers, including the following: “evangelize” (euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce” (anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō [Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8, 26]). Preaching to believers also took place, in a worship context. This article highlights the latter context.

Influences on Preaching

From its inception, a core component of Christian worship was the public proclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preaching took in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seem most influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, the practices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Roman rhetoric.

Prophesying. The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be an early form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking in the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was that form of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, was shared and the church was edified (1 Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1, 3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship community tested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1 Cor. 14:29; cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1–3).

A couple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was more closely related to preaching than to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend the former but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, the function of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1 Cor. 14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’s most comprehensive term for public proclamation (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:3–4). That is why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in the process of prophesying (1 Cor. 14:29–31). The practice of prophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.

Synagogue. Another element influencing early Christian preaching was the synagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preaching flowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In the synagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed by commentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).

These two components—prophecy and the reading and exposition of Scripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencing the shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remains uncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices in Christian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue, took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adopted it into the context of worship in house churches, along with the Jewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesying merged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture to create a more systematic form of proclamation.

The exposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging the validity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria for verifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone; it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20, 21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrines of the church (1 Cor. 14:29, 37; 1 John 4:1–3).

Greco-Roman rhetoric. A third component influencing early Christian preaching was the classical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings of rhetoric saturated the culture and education of the day. However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christian culture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiarity with Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that its influence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.

Sermons and Their Content

The NT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a public worship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon to the elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preaching because it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teaching in his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’s letters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. His letters have an oral quality about them and were read in the assemblies (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’s letters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.

Another important issue related to early Christian preaching involves the content of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction should be made between kerygma and didachē. C. H. Dodd has defined early Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The term he uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was an evangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed to non-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was an ethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians. However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between the two. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal (paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2–3 with 2 Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce the good news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate that good news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachē embodied the content of early Christian preaching.

Preacher

Influences on Preaching

Sermons and Their Content

Preaching

Influences on Preaching

Sermons and Their Content

Second Coming

Jesus’ personal return to earth at the end of history. Three main Greek terms are used in the NT to describe this event: parousia, apokalypsis, and epiphaneia. The word parousia means “presence” or “arrival” and was used in ancient times to describe the arrival of a ruler or king (e.g., Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; James 5:7–8; 2 Pet. 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28). The term apokalypsis refers to an “unveiling” or “revealing” of Jesus Christ at the end of the age (Rom. 2:5; 1 Cor. 1:7; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 4:13; cf. Rev. 1:1). The word epiphaneia speaks of an “appearing” or “manifestation” and refers to the visible, earthly appearance of Jesus (2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13).

Jesus clearly predicted his second coming in his Olivet Discourse: “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30). Jesus uses the word “come” in this discourse to speak about his return (Matt. 24:39, 42–44, 46; 25:19, 27, 31). Jesus’ return is also predicted by angels (e.g., Acts 1:11) and apostles (Phil. 3:20; Acts 3:20–21; 1 Cor. 11:26; Heb. 9:28).

The NT describes certain events that will precede Jesus’ coming. There will be wars, famines, earthquakes, and other cosmic disturbances (Matt. 24:6–8, 29). Believers will be persecuted and hated (Matt. 24:9–13, 21–22). Many erstwhile believers will turn away from the faith (Matt. 24:10–13; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 2 Pet. 3:3–4). There will be false messiahs and false prophets who will deceive many through signs and wonders (Matt. 24:11, 23–26). The “man of lawlessness” (sometimes referred to as the antichrist) will be revealed (2 Thess. 2:1–12). In addition, the gospel will be preached to all nations (Matt. 24:14).

Although Jesus’ coming is certain, its exact time is uncertain in the sense that it cannot be predicted. Jesus himself said, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36 [cf. Acts 1:7; 3:21; 2 Pet. 3:4, 8–9]).

When Jesus comes again, his return will be visible to all, like “lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west” (Matt. 24:27). The last trumpet will announce his coming in awesome power and great glory with his holy angels (Matt. 16:27; 24:30–31; 25:31; 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7; 2:8; Jude 14). His coming will also be sudden and unexpected, “like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:1–2; see also Matt. 24:37–39, 43–44; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 16:15).

Jesus will come again for several reasons. He will raise the dead (John 5:28–29; 1 Cor. 15:22–23, 52; 1 Thess. 4:16) and separate the wicked from the righteous (Matt. 24:40–41; 25:31–32). He will transform the bodies of believers into glorious resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15:51–53; Phil. 3:20–21), gather his followers to himself (1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Thess. 2:1), and reward them for their faithfulness (Matt. 16:27; 24:46–47; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 22:12). The believer’s suffering will be replaced with the Lord’s praise (2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:13) and the full experience of salvation (Heb. 9:28). By contrast, Jesus’ second advent means wrath for the wicked (Matt. 24:51; Rom. 2:5; 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Jude 15; Rev. 20:11–15) and destruction for God’s enemies (1 Cor. 15:25–26; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11–21; 20:7–10).

Since his coming is imminent but its timing uncertain, believers should eagerly expect his return (1 Cor. 1:7; 11:26; 16:22; Phil. 3:20; James 5:7–8; Rev. 22:20). Remaining watchful and ready consists of being faithfully engaged in doing what Jesus instructed (Matt. 24:46; 25:14–30; 1 John 2:28), even if this means suffering (Matt. 24:13; 1 Pet. 1:6–7). Believers are called to live holy and blameless lives in anticipation of meeting Jesus face-to-face (1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23; 1 Tim. 6:14; 1 Pet. 1:13; 2 Pet. 3:11–14; 1 John 2:28–29; 3:2–3). The promise of Jesus’ return is a motivation for mission (2 Tim. 4:1–2; 2 Pet. 3:12) and obedience (Rev. 22:7, 12, 17). It is, in short, the “blessed hope” of the believer (Titus 2:13).

Security of the Believer

The safety and endurance of a Christian’s salvation. Theologians over the centuries have debated whether salvation can be lost, but several lines of argument taken from Scripture support the teaching that salvation by its very nature is eternal.

Election and Grace

Passages on divine election reveal that those who come to faith do so not merely out of personal choice, but ultimately because they have been chosen by God (Eph. 1:4). God draws those whom he chooses, and they respond to his call (John 6:37, 44, 65). If genuine believers could lose their salvation, it would imply that God’s purpose and plan in election had been ineffective, an idea that contradicts Scripture (John 6:39).

The apostle Paul maintains that salvation is bestowed by God as a gift of his grace (Rom. 3:24; 6:23; Eph. 1:7; 2:8–9). This free gift cannot be merited or earned. It is not granted or withheld on the basis of a person’s moral character, no matter how noble or wicked, and it is never merited or forfeited through anything a person does, no matter how good or evil. Rather, it is granted due to something that lies within the nature of God—his gracious character, his purpose, and his free choice. Salvation endures due to the same perfections in God that cannot change (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). Although salvation is bestowed as a matter of God’s grace, faith is the means by which it is received (Rom. 3:21–25). Yet faith is not a work and is never said to earn God’s grace (Eph. 2:8). Good works are the evidence of a life that has experienced the grace of God.

Rebirth and Eternal Life

Scripture reveals that salvation is imparted through regeneration or rebirth. Jesus describes it as being “born again” (John 3:3, 7). Paul uses a related concept when he writes that we are saved “through the washing of rebirth” (Titus 3:5). Peter teaches essentially the same thing: “He has given us new birth” (1 Pet. 1:3). The life that is imparted is “eternal” (John 3:16; 10:28; 17:2; Rom. 6:23). Paul maintains that God’s gifts and call are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). Thus, there is no notion in the Scriptures that a regenerated follower of Christ ever becomes unregenerate, nor does eternal life ever morph into something temporal. In praying to the Father, Jesus notes that believers are a gift from the Father to the Son, and that none of them would be lost (John 17:2, 12). Judas Iscariot’s perdition clearly was part of God’s sovereign plan (John 17:12; Acts 1:16).

Protection of the Believer

The Holy Spirit is said to seal or be the seal of believers. Paul writes, “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). This refers to the divine ownership and protection granted to the believer, who has been given “the Spirit as a deposit,” guaranteeing that God will finish the work that he began (2 Cor. 5:5; Phil. 1:6). Jesus taught the same truth regarding the believer’s security: “No one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28–29). Peter maintained this same confidence when he wrote that the believer is shielded through faith “by God’s power” (1 Pet. 1:5). One of the strongest arguments for the security of the believer is found in Rom. 8:38–39: “Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Something greater than God would be needed to wrestle salvation from those to whom he has granted it.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible teaches eternal security, citing passages that seem to imply that a saved individual can again become lost and suffer eternal judgment, most likely referring to the severe yet temporal discipline of God directed toward his erring children or toward those who depart from the faith because they were merely professing believers (Matt. 13:20–21, 24–30; John 15:6; 1 Cor. 11:30–32; 2 Cor. 11:13–15; 2 Tim. 4:10, 14; Heb. 6:4–9; 10:26–31; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22; 1 John 2:19; 5:16; 2 John 9; Rev. 2:5, 16). But those who defend the doctrine believe these passages do not contradict this teaching; they merely reveal that God purposes to accomplish this work with the cooperation of the believer (1 John 5:4; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).

The writer to the Hebrews, who lays down some of the most severe warnings in the NT, nevertheless maintains that God is “able for all time to save,” and that his readers did not belong to those who “shrink back and so are lost” (Heb. 7:25; 10:39 NRSV). Jude asserts that God is able to present the believer “without fault” before his presence (Jude 24). Essentially, this is what Jesus says in John 10:28–29: “They shall never perish” (cf. 17:12). The loss of one sheep would impugn the power and character of God, who not only saves by grace but also keeps us by his grace and in his grace (Rom. 5:2).

Suffering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suzerain

Terminology

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

The Covenant Genre

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

Covenants in the Bible

Suzerainty Treaty

Terminology

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

The Covenant Genre

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

Covenants in the Bible

Table

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

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

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

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

Tradition

The English word “tradition” refers both to a process of transmitting information from generation to generation and to the content that is thus transmitted. Tradition can be oral or written, and in the context of theology and biblical studies it constitutes a form of religious authority and a means of legitimating customs and beliefs. Much of the biblical data concerning tradition, which comes primarily from the NT, is connected with the verbal notion of “passing (something) on” or, conversely, “receiving (something).” There is also a noun meaning “tradition.” The writings of the NT are neither for nor against traditional authority per se as a form of religious authority, but instead display a range of attitudes toward tradition and traditions.

Jesus’ Critique of Jewish Tradition

On one occasion, Jesus sharply rebuked the Pharisees and teachers of the law for “setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions” (Mark 7:9 [cf. Matt. 15:1–20]). The context of this remark is a dispute between Jesus and his interlocutors that arose when Jesus’ disciples were observed eating with unwashed hands. According to the Pharisees (as reported by Matthew and Mark), this requirement was a “tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:5). Jesus, however, distinguished between human traditions and the word of God, and he accused the Pharisees of adhering to the former even when this conflicted with observance of the latter. Later written rabbinic sources posited two streams of normative tradition, both going back to Moses and Mount Sinai: the written law and the oral law. This distinction, or one like it, may lie behind Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. It is important to note that Jesus’ criticism of tradition is not simply formal (i.e., opposition to traditional authority as such) but is substantive, in that the Pharisees were guilty of following traditions that prevented them from observing the commands of Moses: “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that” (Mark 7:13). The memory of Jesus’ antitraditional posture was later invoked by the opponents of Stephen, who said, “We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us” (Acts 6:14).

Such a negative view of tradition is also evident in Col. 2:8, where the apostle warns against captivity to “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” The subsequent discussion elucidates to some extent the content of the traditions that threatened to displace the primary orientation of the believer to life in Christ (2:6–7); these include circumcision “performed by human hands” (2:11), rules about eating, drinking, Sabbaths, and holidays (2:16), and rules of asceticism designed to restrain “sensual indulgence” (2:23). Interestingly, while Jesus set up an antithesis between the traditions of the elders and the law of Moses, Col. 2:14 appears to identify “the charge of our legal indebtedness” with the system that depends on human tradition rather than on Christ.

The situation represented by Col. 2:8–23 (dependence on tradition versus dependence on Christ) finds a similar expression in Paul’s autobiographical account in Gal. 1:11–24. There, Paul assures his audience that the gospel he preached “is not of human origin” (v. 11). Invoking the vocabulary of tradition, he continues, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (vv. 12–13). Paul goes on to flesh out this antithesis between revelation and tradition, particularly as it applies to his apostolic claims: he is not against religious tradition as such, since he was formerly “zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (v. 14). Nonetheless, the radically nontraditional authority of his gospel is underscored by the fact that he did “not consult any human being” (vv. 16–17, 19). Of course, it is not likely that Paul would desire to undermine tradition per se, as he would himself rely on it as a means of propagating his own gospel. Indeed, he had already warned the Galatians against departing from the tradition that they had accepted from him (1:9) (see the discussion of 1 Cor. 15:1–11 below).

Positive Attitudes toward Tradition

In contrast to Jesus’ critique of the traditions of the elders observed by the Pharisees, a number of NT texts present the transmission of traditions in a positive light. Chief among these is Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor. 15:1–11 of the gospel he preached in Corinth. In this text, he speaks of his own reception of the tradition (“For what I received” [v. 3]), his transmission of the tradition to the Corinthians (“I passed on to you as of first importance” [v. 3]), and the church’s reception of the tradition (“I want to remind you of the gospel . . . which you received” [v. 1]). What follows, the content of the tradition, is a summary of the events of the death and resurrection of Christ according to the Scriptures and his postresurrection manifestation to the apostles, including Paul himself (vv. 3–7). Previously in 1 Corinthians, Paul had commended his audience for their fidelity to tradition: “I praise you for . . . holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you” (11:2). To return to the discussion of Gal. 1 and Paul’s radical break with tradition: for Paul, the revelation of Christ stood outside the prior stream of tradition in which he had been raised, but subsequently it became a new tradition to be passed on and to be held with as much zeal as the old (see Acts 16:4; Rom. 6:17; 1 Cor. 11:23; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1–2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6).

Like Paul, other NT writers appeal to traditional authority as a means of passing on the faith. Jude urges his readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3 [cf. 2 Pet. 2:21]). Luke’s credentials as a historian include his faithful transmission of the account of things “just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2). Like Paul, Luke asserts the authority of the traditional process while also recognizing that the transmitted tradition had a historical inception in recent memory (in this case, the testimony of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus). In other words, the appeal is not simply to traditional teaching per se, as if “old” is intrinsically better than “new”; rather, the story of Jesus, as new as it is in history, becomes a matter of tradition once it has occurred and been testified to by eyewitnesses.

Tradition and Protestantism

In broad terms, each of the three great “religions of the book” (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) recognizes theologically normative streams of postscriptural (or extrascriptural) tradition in addition to their sacred books. During the Reformation, Protestant theologians sought to introduce a number of corrections to medieval theology under the banner of a return to “Scripture alone” (sola Scriptura). In response, Catholic theologians asserted the authority of Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the teaching of the church). All living traditions, of course, pragmatically rely on multiple forms of religious authority. As a result of this history, “tradition” has come to stand for an illegitimate or at least suspect form of religious authority in some strands of Protestant thought, wherein a radical biblicism is professed in contrast to a celebration of tradition and traditions.

Treaty

Terminology

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

The Covenant Genre

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

Covenants in the Bible

Trees

Vassal

Terminology

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

The Covenant Genre

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

Covenants in the Bible

Wine

An alcoholic beverage made primarily by fermenting grapes, wine was valued as both a pleasurable and a functional drink (Ps. 104:15; 1 Tim. 5:23) and therefore a staple of ceremonial practice and social gatherings (Exod. 29:40; John 2:1–3). For this reason, wine is a symbol of God’s blessing (Gen. 27:28; John 2:11), particularly for his covenant people (Isa. 25:6, 55:1; 1 Cor. 11:25). Yet the Bible also warns against the abuse of alcohol, which can lead to drunkenness and debauchery (Prov. 9:4–5; Eph. 5:18). Such abuse becomes a symbol of God’s curse for disobedience (Hos. 4:11; 9:2; Matt. 27:48–49).

Showing 1 to 50 of440 results

1. The Last Meal

Illustration

Larry Powell

Perhaps you have visited the Upper Room Chapel in Nashville, Tennessee, and had the opportunity to meditate before the marvelous wood carving and its appointments which so dramatically depict the Last Supper. One of the mysterious features of this particular carving is that no matter where you kneel before the figure of Christ, his eyes gaze strangely into yours. So it must have seemed to the disciples gathered around the table in Jerusalem on that fateful evening. How much more intense it must have been for Judas, and we can but wonder where his eyes were fixed when Jesus uttered those terrible words. "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me" (Matthew 26:23).

So far as the disciples were concerned, they had gathered, as they had done since childhood, to partake of the traditional Passover meal. The streets of Jerusalem were crowded with pious Jews who had come into the city for this express purpose. The ritual was always the same: while at the table, the story of the escape from Egypt would be recounted ... there would be special foods on the table and unleavened bread would be eaten as a reminder of the haste in which the Exodus people had been forced to flee Egypt ... it was always the same.

To the disciples’ surprise however, Jesus suddenly departed from the familiar references; "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ Likewise also the cup after supper saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’ " Jesus had dramatically transformed the Passover supper into the Lord’s Supper on the evening of his "last supper" with them (see also Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-29).

The Lord’s Supper:

1. Is a sacrament, meaning that it was instituted by Christ and commanded to be continued "till he come." In Paul’s familiar passage, used in the sacrament ritual, he adds, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

2. Symbolizes the new covenant. The Old Testament covenant of the Law was sealed with the blood of animal sacrifice. However, this covenant had failed. The prophets themselves had said, "Behold, the days will come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new convenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." The covenant of Law was being superseded by the new convenant of love, sealed by the blood of Christ.

3. Uses of common elements. In addition to using the traditional elements of the Passover, bread and wine, Jesus realized that each day when his followers partook of their meals, two things were certain to be on the table ... bread and wine. Consequently, even an ordinary meal would include reminders of the new covenant.

4. Was observed anxiously. Devout early Christians met daily to observe the sacrament in the prayerful hope that Jesus would return while they were sharing the sacred meal. In time, the early Church observed the sacrament each Sunday, a practice continued until the Reformation. Oddly enough, in Scotland, during the sixteenth century, it was observed in the country twice and in town four times a year.

5. Is called the eucharist, meaning the "thanksgiving," based on the passage, "He took a cup, and when he had given thanks...."

Perhaps John Calvin spoke for each of us when he admitted that "the matter is too sublime for me to be able to express, or even to comprehend ... I rather experience it, than understand it."

2. The Communion of Empty Hands

Illustration

Alex Gondola

There's a beautiful incident recorded by Thomas Pettepiece, a Methodist pastor who was imprisoned during WWII. He was a political prisoner, a prisoner of conscience. Pettepiece writes of his first Easter Sunday spent in prison. He was among 10,000 prisoners. Most of the men had lost everything: their homes, their jobs, their furniture, their contact with their families. It was Easter Sunday, and they wanted to celebrate Communion. But, they had no cup for Communion. They had no wine for Communion. They didn't even have water for Communion. Nor did they have any bread for the Sacrament.

So, they practiced the Communion of Empty Hands. "This meal in which we take part," Pettepeice said, "reminds us of the imprisonment, the torture, the death and final victory of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The bread is the body which he gave for humanity. The fact that we have none represents very well the lack of bread in the hunger of so many millions of human beings. The wine, which we don't have today, is his blood, and represents our dream of a united humanity, of a just society, without difference of race or class."

Then Pettepiece, the pastor, held out his empty hand to the next person on his right, and passed on the imaginary loaf. Each one took a piece and passed it on. Then he said, "Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And together they ate the imaginary bread, trying to imagine tasting it.

After a moment they passed around the non-existent chalice, each imagining he was drinking from it. "Take, drink, this is the blood of Christ which was shed for you ... Let us give thanks, sure that Christ is here with us, strengthening us."

They gave thanks to God and then stood up and embraced each other. And a while later, one of the non-Christian prisoners came up to them and said, "You people have something special, which I would like to have." And the father of a girl who had died came up to Pettepiece and said, "Pastor, this was a real experience. I believe that today I discovered what faith is ..." (from Visions of a World Hungry, quoted in A Guide To Prayer, Rueben P. Job and Norman Shawchuck, editors, The Upper Room, p. 143).

3. With a Repentant Heart

Illustration

Charles W. Colson,

Believers dare not come to the Lord's Table except with a repentant heart. "Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner," as Paul puts it, "drinks judgment to himself." That should be a sobering warning, especially when the apostle adds that because of this offense many have fallen ill or died. Any pastor who takes the Word of God seriously should never administer Communion without adequately warning partakers. Those who are unrepentant should flee the table rather than trivialize the sacred.

And God does not view this sacred act lightly. Pat Novak, pastor in a nonsacramental denomination, discovered this when he was serving as a hospital chaplain intern just outside of Boston several years ago. Pat was making his rounds one summer morning when he was called to visit a patient admitted with an undiagnosed ailment. John, a man in his sixties, had not responded to any treatment; medical tests showed nothing; psychological tests were inconclusive. Yet he was wasting away; he had not even been able to swallow for two weeks. The nurses tried everything. Finally they called the chaplain's office.

When Pat walked into the room, John was sitting limply in his bed, strung with IV tubes, staring listlessly at the wall. He was a tall, grandfatherly man, balding a little, but his sallow skin hung loosely on his face, neck, and arms where the weight had dropped from his frame. His eyes were hollow.

Pat was terrified; he had no idea what to do. But John seemed to brighten a bit as soon as he saw Pat's chaplain badge and invited him to sit down. As they talked, Pat sensed that God was urging him to do something specific: He knew he was to ask John if he wanted to take Communion. Chaplain interns were not encouraged to ask this type of thing in this public hospital, but Pat did.

At that John broke down. "I can't!" he cried. "I've sinned and can't be forgiven."

Pat paused a moment, knowing he was about to break policy again. Then he told John about 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's admonition that whoever takes Communion in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself. And he asked John if he wanted to confess his sin. John nodded gratefully. To this day Pat can't remember the particular sin John confessed, nor would he say if he did, but he recalls that it did not strike him as particularly egregious. Yet it had been draining the life from this man. John wept as he confessed, and Pat laid hands on him, hugged him, and told John his sins were forgiven.

Then Pat got the second urging from the Holy Spirit: Ask him if he wants to take Communion. He did. Pat gave John a Bible and told him he would be back later. Already John was sitting up straighter, with a flicker of light in his eyes.

Pat visited a few more patients and then ate some lunch in the hospital cafeteria. When he left he wrapped an extra piece of bread in a napkin and borrowed a coffee cup from the cafeteria. He ran out to a shop a few blocks away and bought a container of grape juice. Then he returned to John's room with the elements and celebrated Communion with him, again reciting 1 Corinthians 11. John took the bread and chewed it slowly. It was the first time in weeks he had been able to take solid food in his mouth. He took the cup and swallowed. He had been set free.

Within three days John walked out of that hospital. The nurses were so amazed they called the newspaper, which later featured the story of John and Pat, appropriately, in its "LIFE" section.

4. A Strong Bundle of Christians

Illustration

Michael P. Green

A man asked his young son to break a bundle of sticks. He returned a little later to find the lad frustrated in the task. He had raised the bundle high and smashed it on his knee, but he only bruised his knee. He had set the bundle against a wall and stomped hard with his foot, but the bundle barely bent.

The father took the bundle from the child and untied it. Then he began to break the sticks easily—one at a time.

So it is with the church: united we are strong, divided we can fail or be broken.

5. A Time to Remember

Illustration

Brett Blair

In his book The Swann's Way, the French novelist Marcel Proust wrote of returning home late one evening on a dull winter day when he faced the prospect of a depressing tomorrow. The maid greeted him and, seeing that he was tired, brought him a cup of hot tea and some cake. Being both tired and depressed he at first refused them. Only at her insistence did he finally begin to drink the tea and eat the cake. Proust wrote that an unexplainable delight suddenly came over him. His anxieties and troubles seemed to vanish. Suddenly, he wrote, I had "ceased to feel mediocre, accidental and mortal."

What caused this wonderful sensation to come over him? He was at a loss to explain it. How could a taste of tea and cake produce this feeling of peace? He drank and ate more but he still could not decipher the secret. The truth, he guessed, must be in himself and not in what he was eating and drinking.

Proust began to search within himself. Suddenly he began to remember. His mind carried him back to Combray, France where in childhood he visited his Aunt and she feed him cake and hot tea. Proust had been unmoved by the sight of the tea and cake but the taste had sent shockwaves through him and reminded him of scenes long forgotten. Suddenly he remembered the little town, the village church, the old house, the long forgotten relatives, and the flowers in the garden. The tea and cake had recovered for Proust the memory and mystery of an existence long past.

Is it, indeed, possible to hand a person a cup of tea and say to that person: Now drink this and remember who you are? It not only is possible but I submit to you that in a real sense that is what we do when we partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. By partaking of the bread and wine we are seeking to recover the experience of salvation. Like the novelist Proust, it causes us to think back on experiences that happened long ago and in remembering these experiences we begin to recover our own sense of identity. In a haunting and mystical way the sacrament calls us to remember remember who we are and whose we are.

6. Who Is Jesus?

Illustration

John R. Brokhoff

Now, more than ever, we need to face the question, "Who is the real Jesus?" Is the Christ of faith the Jesus of history? What is the truth about Jesus? What can we believe? We turn to the Apostles' Creed which has given the church's answer for 2,000 years.

Different Positions

It is not strange that the most popular question of our time is, "Who is Jesus?" Was this question not answered in Matthew 16:16 when Peter said to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"? In Jesus' day, too, there were different opinions about Jesus. When on a retreat with his disciples, he asked them what people were saying about him. The public was divided: Jesus was considered to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What more of an answer do we need than the answer of Peter? Jesus accepted his answer as the truth, for he said, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Yet, after twenty centuries, we do not believe what Peter said about the identity of Jesus. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Jesus is the Son of God." A recent report from Germany indicated that only one out of every four believe in Jesus Christ. Throughout Christian history down to the present, there are different views of Jesus. Now let us look at some of them.

1. The All-Human Jesus

Human

According to this position, Jesus is 100 percent human. It was held as early as the first centuries of Christianity by the Ebionites. They denied that Jesus was divine. He was only a teacher, prophet, miracle-man, and one with an outstanding character. But he was not divine, the Son of God. Today this view is held by many, including atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, and other non-Christian religions.

2. The All-Divine Jesus

Divine

Opposite the Ebionites, Docetists held that Jesus was entirely divine. He was not at all human. This view was originally taught by Eutychus, a monk in a monastery near Constantinople. In the fourth century, Appolonarius, bishop of Laodicea, popularized the teaching. It was known as Docetism, from the Latin word docere meaning "to seem." It just seemed that Jesus was human. It was based on the idea that the physical and material were inherently evil. The human body therefore was sinful. Jesus therefore was not human, for God could not be identified with sin. Docetists held that Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by the divine. This denied the Incarnation, the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh."

3. The Half And Half Jesus

Human/Divine

Nestorians took the view that Jesus was half human and half divine. It was taught by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in the fifth century. To this day it is a very popular understanding of Jesus. When we see Jesus hungry, thirsty, and tired, we say it was because he was human. When he struggles in prayer and on the cross cries out, "My God, why ...?" we see the human Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus is God when he walks on water, feeds 5,000, raises the dead, heals lepers, and rises from the grave. The problem with this view is that we have a divided Jesus -- two persons in one body.

4. The Adopted Jesus

Divine

Human

This is known as adoptionism. According to this position, Jesus came into the world as a human. Because of his moral excellence, his perfect obedience to God, his wisdom, his compassion for people, and his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross, the Father adopted him as his son at his baptism. This adoption was confirmed by the resurrection and the ascension. Jesus then became a deified man.

5. The Both And Jesus

Human & Divine

The above different positions concerning Jesus caused great concern, for the gospel was at stake. If Jesus were only human, then he was just a martyr on the cross and not the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. If he were only human, the resurrection was a fairy tale. His promises of forgiveness and eternal life were meaningless. His claims to know God and to be one with God would then be the words of a religious fanatic who was deluded into thinking he was the Son of God.

On the other hand, if Jesus were only divine and not human, humanity would be the loser. Because he was human, he became one of us. As a human, he fulfilled the law for us. Through his humanity we could see the nature of God. Above all, he became sin for us so that sin, through him, could go out of the world. As a human Jesus knows our human condition. Like all of us he was tempted and he showed that by the power of God we can overcome temptation to sin.

Consequently, the church had to take a stand on the question of Jesus. Is he only human, only divine, or half and half? In 451 A.D. the church held a council at Chalcedon to decide the issue. The church decided that it was not a matter of Jesus being fully God or fully human, or half and half, but it was a matter of both, both fully human and fully divine. To this day the church holds to this truth stated at Chalcedon:

We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, or a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father with respect to the Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect of the manhood, like us in everything but sin ...

This is to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man. These two natures are blended into one integrated personality. He is not a split personality, nor does he suffer from schizophrenia. It is like a blender in your kitchen. Suppose you put apples, peaches, and pears in it and pushed the "on" button for a minute. Now what do you have -- apples, peaches, and pears? Yes, you do, but can you tell which is which? They have become one fruit, one substance. Also, it is like homogenized milk. When the raw milk comes from the farm, a dairy runs it through a homogenizer. As the milk runs through the machine, pistons compact the milk so that the cream and skim milk are made one. As a result you cannot take cream off the milk. In the same way, the human and divine natures of Jesus are compacted into one integrated person.

This means that the Father and the Son are one. When Jesus prays, God also prays. When the human Jesus suffers and dies on a cross, God is in Jesus enduring the cross. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). When the human Jesus speaks, it is also God who speaks. When Jesus weeps, God weeps. This truth makes us realize the seriousness of the cross. It was not only a human on the cross, but God was there in Jesus. Good Friday is the day God died in Jesus. Indeed, the murderers did not know what they were doing; they did not know they were killing God! As the spiritual says, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble."

7. Spirit Power - Sermon Starter

Illustration

King Duncan

In 1926, a wealthy Toronto lawyer named Charles Vance Millar died, leaving behind him a will that amused and electrified the citizens of his Canadian province. Millar, a bachelor with a wicked sense of humor, stated clearly that he intended his last will and testament to be an "uncommon and capricious" document. Because he had no close heirs to inherit his fortune, he divided his money and properties in a way that amused him and aggravated his newly chosen heirs. Here are just a few examples of his strange bequests:

He left shares in the Ontario Jockey Club to two prominent men who were well‑known for their opposition to racetrack betting.

He bequeathed shares in the O'Keefe Brewery Company (a Catholic beer manufacturer) to every Protestant minister in Toronto.

But his most famous bequest was that he would leave his fortune to the Toronto woman who gave birth to the most children in the ten years after his death.

This last clause in his will caught the public fancy--concerning the woman who produced the most children over a ten-year period. The country was entering the Great Depression. As people struggled to meet even their most basic economic responsibilities, the prospect of an enormous windfall was naturally quite alluring. Newspaper reporters scoured the public records to find likely contenders for what became known as The Great Stork Derby. Nationwide excitement over the Stork Derby built quickly.

In 1936, four mothers‑‑proud producers of nine children apiece in a ten‑year time span‑‑divided up the Millar fortune, each receiving what was a staggering sum in those days, $125,000. Charles Millar caused much mischief with his will. This was his final legacy to humanity.

Let's talk about legacies for a moment. This Memorial Day weekend we remember those who died in our nation's service. Regardless of how we might feel about war in general, or any war in particular, it is only right that we should pay homage to those who lay down their lives for our country. This is the legacy that they bequeathed to us--a free and prosperous land.

When Jesus of Nazareth left this earth, he bequeathed a legacy to his followers. He left his Holy Spirit--to comfort, to guide, to empower them to be all that God had called them to be. Today we celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit on the church.

1. The Birthday of the Church.
2. A Spirit-filled Church.
3. The Bold Spirit of Christ in Us.

8. Tell Me about God

Illustration

Linda B. Hirst

There's that wonderful story about the little boy who couldn't wait for his new baby sister to come home from the hospital. He couldn't wait to be near her, to talk to her. But his parents didn't want him to be left alone with her; he was only four, they wanted to supervise his visits. He kept begging to be alone with her so one night his parents finally relented. The boy tiptoed into her room and next to his sister's crib and said: "Tell me about God - I'm starting to forget."

We need to gather together around this table every once in awhile to tell each other about God; to remember just how much God loves us. To tell the story of how God reached out to us, came to us in Jesus Christ to show us a new way of living. We need to break the bread and pour the cup to remember that Jesus died so that we might know forgiveness of all our sins and be reconciled with God. And we need to take this bread and drink this cup to remember that Christ is present with us now.

9. Gospel Grandmothers

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

United Church has a tradition. They were known for supporting their pastors very well. Any pastor who has ever served at United will verify the truth of this tradition. Pastors, for example, consider it a privilege to serve in this congregation deep in the heart of Texas. Pastor Mike Snyder surely did. Pastor Mike, as everyone called him, had had a kind of love affair with this congregation throughout his nine years of service at United. The feeling was mutual. The people of United felt uniquely blessed by him as well.

It was not much of a surprise, therefore, when the church board at United decided to hold a special evening meeting to honor and celebrate the ministry of Pastor Mike Snyder. Someone on the board had found out that this year was the 25th anniversary of Pastor Snyder's ordination. Everyone agreed immediately that there should be a party, a Texas-style party to honor their pastor's 25 years of ordained ministry. And so it was.

The party for Pastor Snyder's anniversary was held on a hot Texas summer night. Just about the whole congregation turned out for it. Choirs sang their favorite numbers. The younger children recited verses of Bible stories they had learned. One of the members of the high school youth group spoke on their behalf. Many adults spoke as well. There was a representative of the women's organization, the men's club, the church board and just about every other group at United.

In their speeches people took care not to paint Pastor Snyder as some kind of perfect saint. It wasn't that Pastor Snyder's ministry with them was without fault. In fact, they knew his faults pretty well. There were some well-timed jokes concerning the fact that Pastor Snyder often neglected his own family in order to get all the ministry done at United. "You have to find more time for your own family," said the woman from the women's organization. Other jokes teased Pastor Snyder about the short fuse on his temper. They reminded him gently to put a lid on it!

And so the party went on. Words of thanksgiving and praise were spoken. So were words of caution and concern. And now it was time for Pastor Snyder's response. Jimmie Jones, chair of the church board, invited the pastor to the podium. "One of the things you've done best among us," said Jimmie, "is to help bring faith to life. We'd like to know who helped you. Who helped you to faith, Pastor Mike?"

"My grandmother," said Pastor Snyder without hesitation. "I believe that my grandmother had a tremendous shaping power over my life of faith even though I never knew her. She died eight years before I was born. But I heard the stories. I heard stories of how she headed up the Sunday school until she died. I heard stories of how she was the pioneer in seeing to it that the English language was introduced into her congregation of immigrants. I heard many stories of her faith."

"I can't explain it but I have always felt that my call to the ministry was a call to fulfill my grandmother's legacy. In some mysterious way I feel that her vision of Christian service has been passed along to me. She is, in a very special way, my 'gospel grandmother.' I'll bet many people here tonight can name a 'gospel grandmother' who has helped to lead you to faith. I thank God, we should all thank God, for our grandmothers in the faith!"

10. Limiting Labels

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

In his novel The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald penned a sentence that begged serious reflection: “Reserving judgment is a matter of infinite hope.”

One of the most common and destructive ways we judge is to put people in boxes by pinning them with labels.

As a young preacher in Mississippi in the early ‘60s, I was labeled a liberal because of my stand on civil rights. When I left Mississippi and moved to southern California, I was soon labeled a conservative because I was evangelistic in my preaching and had a southern accent.

In both instances the labels were limiting. People heard me out of their own preconceptions of who I was and what I stood for.

When we reserve judgment, we’re saying, “There’s more to you than I now perceive. I will wait and be patient. I will seek to see clearly. I will not limit you with a label.”

Fitzgerald is right. “Reserving judgment is a matter of infinite hope.”

11. A List of Murphy's Laws

Illustration

Staff

If anything can go wrong, it will.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.
Everything takes longer than you expect.
If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will go wrong first will be the one that will do the most damage.
Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse.
If you play with something long enough, you will surely break it.
If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
If you see that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
The consumer report on the item will come out a week after you've made your purchase
Gold's Law: If the shoe fits, its ugly.
If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don't want hits the paper.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
If everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
When you dial a wrong number you never get a busy signal.
Law of Gardening: You get the most of what you need the least.
Jones's Law: Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.
Eve's Discovery: At a sale, the only suit or dress that you like and that fits is not the one on sale.
Nothing will be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.
Harris's Law. Any philosophy that can be put "in a nutshell" belongs there. Sidney J. Harris
Douglas's Law of Practical Aeronautics: When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. Donald Douglas
Unnamed Law. If it happens, it must be possible.
Wing-Walking, First Law of: Never leave hold of what you've got until you've got hold of something else.
Bucy's Law. Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man. Fred Bucy
Clopton's Law: For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.
United Law: if an organization carries the word "united" in its name, it means it isn't: e.g., United Nations, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States.
Kafka's Law: in the fight between you and the world, back the world. Franz Kafka
Ettorre's observation: The other line moves faster. This applies to all lines bank, supermarket, toll booth, customs. If you change lines, then the other line the one you were in originally will move faster.
Osborn's Law. Variables won't, constants aren't.
Never use one word when a dozen will suffice.
If it can be understood, it is not finished yet.
Never do anything for the first time.
Marshall's generalized iceberg theorem: Seven-eighths of everything can't be seen.
Runyon's Law: The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to bet.
The severity of an itch is inversely proportional to the reach.
Paige's Sixth Rule: Don't look back; something might be gaining on you. Satchel Paige
Kristol's Law: Being frustrated is disagreeable, but the real disasters in life begin when you get what you want. Irving Kristol.
Parkinson's Law: (1) Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. (2) Expenditure rises to meet income. C. Northcote Parkinson
Peer's Law: The solution to a problem changes the problem. John Peers
Corcoran's Law: All papers that you save will never be needed until such time as they are disposed of, when they become essential. John Corcoran
Darwin's Observation: Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can. Charles Darwin
Thurber's Conclusion: There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else. James Thurber, Fables for Our Time
A spilled drink flows in the direction of the most expensive object. Judye Briggs, in The New Official Rules, P. Dickson
Law of milk and other precious commodities: The less you have, the more you spill.
Law of epistolary effort: Troublesome correspondence that is postponed long enough will eventually become irrelevant.
Law or repair: Anything adjustable will sooner or later need adjustment
Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
A dog's affection increases in direct proportion to how wet and sandy he is.
When you come in late for work, everybody notices; when you work late, nobody notices.
The waitress always comes around to ask you how your food is whenever your mouth is full.
The average time between throwing something away and needing it badly is about two weeks.
Life is what happens to you while you are making other plans.
If you treat a sick child like an adult and a sick adult like a child, everything works out pretty well.
Checks are always delayed in the mail. Bills arrive on time or sooner.
If you do a job twice, it's yours.
Smith's Fourth Law of Inertia: A body at rest tends to watch television.
No matter how many show up for choir practice, you will need one more copy of the music.
The shorter the agenda the longer the meeting.
When you're right, nobody remembers; when you're wrong, nobody forgets.
O'Reilly's Law: No matter what goes wrong, there's always someone who knew it would.
Kilpatrick's Law: Interchangeable parts aren't.
Shanahan's Law: The length of the is the square of the number of people present.
Brennan's Law: Paper is always strongest at the perforations.
Dooley's Law: If something happens to you, it has previously happened to all your friends.
Never hire a plumber who wears rubber boots or an electrician with scorched eyebrows. Ashley Cooper
Thomas's Rules of the Game: a) No matter how well you do something, someone won't like it. b) No matter how trivial the assignment, it is always possible to build it up to a major issue.
Herman's Rule: if it works right the first time, you've obviously done something wrong. Pat (Mrs. Herman) Jett
Toomey's Rule: It is easy to make decisions on matters for which you have no responsibility.
Immediately after you buy an item, you find a coupon for it. Bill Copeland
The first person who gets off a crowded elevator is always standing in the back. Carl Dombeck
The last key in the bunch usually opens the lock.
The weaker the arguments, the stronger the words. Dave Gneiser.
If a problem causes many meetings, the meetings eventually become more important than the problem.

12. Christ in the Form of Communion

Illustration

James W. Moore

It was a cold Christmas Eve a few years ago. Will Willimon, Dean of the Chapel at Duke University, was rushing his family to get in the car. They were running late for the communion service. "Where are the sermon notes? Where is the pulpit robe? Don't forget to turn off the lights. Everybody get in the car and be quiet!"

On the way to the church… rushing through the traffic, their 5-year-old- daughter, Harriet, got sick at her stomach and she up-chucked all over the car. "Great!" Will Willimon thought, "If people only knew what preachers go through." He wheeled into the church parking lot and jumped out of the car, leaving his wife, Patsy, to clean up the car and get the kids into the church… and he thought, "If people only knew what preachers' spouses go through."

His wife, Patsy, led a still unsteady and pale Harriet into the church. They sat on the back pew in the darkness… just in case Harriet got sick again. Their son, William, age seven, ran down to the front of the church to sit with his grandparents. Will Willimon threw on his robe, took a deep breath, and joined the choir for the processional. He made it through the first part of the service… and the sermon. Then came Holy Communion. Will Willimon's wife, Patsy, came down to the altar to receive the sacrament, but she left 5 year old Harriet on the back pew. Harriet was still so pale and so weak and so sick. But then something beautiful happened. Seven-year-old William got up and came back to the communion rail. "What on earth is he doing?" wondered his parents. "He's already received communion once. What is he up to?" They watched him race to the back of the church and scoot down the pew toward his sister. He opened his hands… revealing a small piece of bread. "Harriet," he said, "This is the body of Christ given for you." Without hesitation, little Harriet picked the bread out of her brother's hands and plopped it into her mouth and said, "Amen." And in that moment Holy Communion had never been more holy. Then 7-year-old William patted his 5-year-old sister Harriet on the head. He smiled. She smiled. And then he turned and ran back down to the front of the church to re-join his grandparents. (The Christian Ministry, July-August 1989, p. 47)

Think of that. Her 7-year-old brother William thought to include her. Either because she wasn't being included or he thought it might help her feel better he reached out to his sister with what really mattered—the body of Christ in the form of communion. There's a name for that… it's called LOVE! What a beautiful thing it is when our children rise to the occasion and teach us once again the power of love, the wonder of love, the miracle of love.

13. It’s for Sinners

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

It was a Maundy Thursday, the Thursday before Easter. The Church was having the traditional communion service. This time the pastor suggested that they serve one another. He also suggested that as they pass the bread and cup they whisper, "The body of Christ, broken for you. The blood of Christ, shed for you."

As the service progressed, one man concentrated on remembering the pastor's words, and thought it would be nice to do this more often. Between him and the aisle was an older woman, not nearly so concerned with the pastor's exact words, but thoroughly understanding their meaning. As she served him she said softly, "Take it. It's for sinners."

Romans 5:8 says: "God showed His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

What better proof of that love could there be. We didn't even have to get cleaned up. We didn't and don't have to do anything except open our hearts and let the love of God flood our souls. All we have to do is reach out our hand to receive the Bread of Life. For it is the Bread of Life who will sustain us and feed us and strengthen us in whatever situation comes our way.

14. The Moral Character of God

Illustration

James Packer

Why do men shy away from the thought of God as a judge? Why do they feel unworthy of him? The truth is that part of God's moral perfection is his perfection in judgment. Would a God who did not care about the difference between right and wrong be a good and admirable being? Would a God who put no distinction between the beasts of history, the Hitlers and Stalins (if we dare use names), and his own saints be morally praiseworthy and perfect? Moral indifference would be an imperfection in God, not a perfection. And not to judge the world would be to show moral indifference. The final proof that God is a perfect moral being, not indifferent to questions of right and wrong, is the fact that he has committed himself to judge the world.

It is clear that the reality of divine judgment must have a direct effect on our view of life. If we know that retributive judgment faces us at the end of the road, we shall not live as otherwise we would. But it must be emphasized that the doctrine of divine judgment, and particularly of the final judgment, is not to be thought of primarily as a bogeyman, with which to frighten men into an outward form of conventional righteousness. It has its frightening implications for godless men, it is true; but its main thrust is as a revelation of the moral character of God, and an imparting of moral significance to human life.

15. Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day

Illustration

William H. Seward

Washington, D.C. March 30, 1863

Senator James Harlan of Iowa, whose daughter later married President Lincoln's son Robert, introduced this Resolution in the Senate on March 2, 1863. The Resolution asked President Lincoln to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting. The Resolution was adopted on March 3, and signed by Lincoln on March 30, one month before the fast day was observed.

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

16. Good Communion Table Manners

Illustration

Alex Gondola

As we come to the Lord's Table, we're all sinners in need of salvation, beggars needing bread. We are "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" in that third story. Maybe not literally poor, crippled, lame, and blind, but spiritually poor, crippled, lame, and blind. Yet God graciously includes us as guests at God's Table. Good communion table manners include coming to the table without thinking too much of ourselves.

And, finally, good communion table manners include coming without looking down on any other guest, for all of us are God's equally beloved guests. King George IV desired Communion and sent a servant to bring the Bishop of Winchester. When the servant arrived with the Bishop, the King was angry. He felt his servant had taken too long. The King upbraided the man and fired him on the spot.

Having done that, he turned to the Bishop for Communion. But the Bishop refused to proceed. He saw that the King was still angry. Realizing the Bishop was right, the King called for his servant, apologized, and restored the man's job. Only then could Communion proceed. Part of good table manners is extending graciousness to the other guests. As we have been forgiven and welcomed by God, let us forgive and welcome each other.

17. Don’t Miss Easter!

Illustration

C. Welton Gaddy

Sharing the gospel and caring for people are non-negotiable for persons who have found, or been found by, the Easter experience. All must hear the commission of Christ--both those looking for something to do and those who seem too busy to do anything else.

It is in faithfulness to the commission of Christ that we discover the real fullness of communion with Christ. To find the resurrected Lord, we must look among the homeless, the bereaved, the suffering, the abused, and the hungry-right where he told us he would be. Christ is found where the unlovable are loved and the grieving are comforted; where the bread and the cup are blessed and consumed.

Though you may have missed Easter this year, a discovery of the risen Christ, whenever it occurs, will set you scurrying about in response to the good news.

A noted pastor named R.W. Dale, like many other pastors, had preached scores of Easter sermons. Then, one year, something different happened. Dale was completely overwhelmed by the confession, "He is risen." Never before had the truth dawned so forcefully and realistically. The pastor was transformed. Subsequently, he instituted a policy calling for the singing of an Easter hymn every single Sunday of the year. One who had missed Easter previously wanted to be sure that no one missed Easter repeatedly.

18. Why the Word "Doubt"?

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

Who doubts? Most English translations render v. 17: "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted" (NRSV). However, the word "some" doesn't occur in the text. The little Greek word de is often translated "but," but it can also mean "and". With this understanding, the verse could be translated: "And seeing him they worshiped and they doubted."

Those who worship are also those who doubt -- like being simultaneously saint and sinner, or the divine and human natures in Jesus, or the body/bread, blood/wine of communion. We frequently talk about two things existing at the same time.

Mark Allan Powell writes about this verse in his book, Loving Jesus: I want to note that the word some is not actually found in the Greek Bible. Why is it in the English version? Well, Matthew uses a particular construction here that allows translators to think that the word some could be implied. He also uses that construction in seventeen other instances, though no one ever seems to think the word is implied in those cases. It could be implied here, but why would it be? I asked a Bible translator that question one time and got the following response: "The verse wouldn't make sense otherwise. No one can worship and doubt at the same time." I invited this fellow to visit a Lutheran church. We do it all the time.

19. Full Devotion

Illustration

Edwin D. Peterman

Several years ago a couple of reporters conducted an experiment on the streets of Miami, Florida. They printed up a copy of the Bill of Rights in the form of a petition, put it on a clipboard, and then stopped people on the sidewalk and asked them to sign it. As you know, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are the Bill of Rights, and they were adopted and put into effect in December of 1791. The reporters were surprised at people's reaction when asked to add their names to the so-called petition. Most people glanced at the document, shook their heads, and walked on by without signing. Several people became angry with the reporters and accused them of being radical enemies of the American way of life. In fact, the experiment ended when the reporters found themselves surrounded by a dozen or so passers-by who were shaking their fists at them and calling them subversive Communists who ought to be thrown in jail.

What the experiment demonstrated is what we already know. Many citizens of the United States pay lip service to their country and its heritage. They claim to be loyal and patriotic in every way. They say they are proud to belong to a country as great as ours. And yet at the same time they haven't the vaguest notion what the United States Constitution actually says, and they consider the Bill of Rights to be a radical, anti-American document. In other words, these people claim citizenship, but they have not internalized the basic meaning of being a citizen. They claim the privilege, but they will not eat and drink the ethos of United States of America.

The same sort of thing is described in today's Gospel. Jesus says, I am the living bread that came down from heaven. . . Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Most people probably think Jesus is talking about communion. He isn't. He's talking about the difference between external lip service and internal embodiment. He's talking about the difference between admiring him and actually taking up one's cross and following him. He's talking about the difference between acting like a Christian on the outside and being a Christian on the inside.

20. I Am the True Vine - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

It is fascinating to me that in our Protestant religious culture, such a strong emphases is placed upon literal interpretation. Interestingly, Jesus so often did not speak literally, but figuratively. He spoke in allegories and images. He painted word pictures. Instead of literally coming out and saying what he meant, he so often would tell a story and let people draw their own conclusion. Indeed, these hidden messages of Jesus frequently frustrated his disciples. They wished that he would speak literally and not be quite so subtle.

This morning we take a look at one of the "I Am" sayings of Jesus. Jesus said: I am the true vine. Now, even the most ardent fundamentalist has to agree that when Jesus spoke these words he was not speaking literally. Obviously, if we are to understand what Jesus was getting at here, we must look beyond the surface and do some exploring. We have to go beyond the actual words and discover Jesus' meaning.

When Jesus spoke about vineyards, the people of Judea knew what he was talking about. It was an industry that had been carefully cultivated throughout the country for centuries. It was crucial because it was a cash crop as opposed to grain, which was raised purely for consumption. In early America the essential crop was corn, but the cash crop was tobacco. It was, therefore, vital to the economy of the land.

Quite frankly I must admit that I know very little about the particulars of the wine industry. In preparation for this sermon I did some reading in this area and it was really quite fascinating. The vines are a very rugged crop in a way and in another sense it is a very delicate fruit and requires being treated with kid gloves. A young vine is not permitted to bear fruit for the first three years. It is therefore drastically pruned in December and January to preserve its energy. The particular branches that do not bear fruit are cut out to further conserve the energy of the plant. If this constant cutting back was not done, the result would be a crop that was not up to its full potential.

So when Jesus spoke about vineyards certainly the people could identify with that metaphor, even as a person in Iowa would know about corn, or in Mississippi about cotton. It didn't make any difference whether or not you were in that business. You had grown up around it enough that you would still be familiar with it.

But there is something else that these listeners would most certainly know. A vineyard was the symbol of the nation. In America we might think of amber waves of grain, but in Judea they thought of their nation as a vineyard. It was a kind of national identity. Over and over again in the Old Testament, Israel is pictured as the vine or the vineyard of God.

Isaiah the prophet pictured Israel as the vineyard of God. He said: The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel. In Jeremiah, we read God referring to his chosen people in this way: I planted you as a choice vine. Hosea spoke a word of judgment when he said: Israel has become an empty vine. In the Psalms we read that God compares Israel to a vine that came out of Egypt. Josephus, the Roman historian, informs us that over the Temple in Jerusalem was carved an exquisite, gold leaf grapevine. It stood as a symbol of national unity. Israel itself was, in the eyes of its people, the true vine, whose roots ran all the way back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In Jesus analogy, he likened himself to a vine, while the fruit bearing branches here are the disciples. God the farmer is depicted as the one who cultivates the vineyard. He waters and tends the soil, so that the vine is properly nourished. He takes pride in his crop. But this means that he also prunes the vines and removes the dead wood. The grapes hang on to the branches. What Jesus is saying is clear. The disciples should receive their strength from Jesus. He is the true vine. If they break away from him, they will be like unproductive branches and die and bear no fruit. They then will have to be pruned out.

What can we make of this analogy in terms of our daily life? What does it mean to be God's vineyard?

First, it means we must bear fruit for the Kingdom of God.
Secondly, it means there is such a thing as an unproductive life.
Third, it means we must cultivate a relationship with Jesus Christ.

21. The Creed of Chalcedon

Illustration

Staff

We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; coessential with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us.

Note: The Chalcedonian Definition is a declaration of Christ's nature, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Chalcedon was an early centre of Christianity located in Asia Minor. The council was the fourth of the Ecumenical Councils that are accepted by Chalcedonian churches which include the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, the Anglican Communion and most Protestant churches. It was the first council not to be recognised by any Oriental Orthodox church; for this reason these churches may be classified as Non-Chalcedonian.

22. A Higher Priority

Illustration

Brett Blair

At the Olympic games in Paris in 1924 the sport of canoe racing was added to the list of international competitions. The favorite team in the four-man canoe race was the United States team. One member of that team was a young man by the name of Bill Havens.

As the time for the Olympics neared, it became clear that Bill's wife would give birth to her first child about the time that Bill would be competing in the Paris Games. In 1924 there were no jet airliners from Paris to the United States, only slow-moving ocean-going ships. And so Bill found himself in a dilemma. Should he go to Paris and risk not being at his wife's side when their first child was born? Or should he withdraw from the team and remain behind. Bill's wife insisted that he go to Paris. After all, he had been working towards this for all these years. It was the culmination of a life-long dream.

Clearly the decision was not easy for Bill to make. Finally, after much soul searching, Bill decided to withdraw from the competition and remain behind with his wife so that he could be with her when their first child arrived. Bill considered being at her side a higher priority than going to Paris to fulfill a life-long dream.

To make a long story short, the United States four-man canoe team won the gold medal at the Paris Olympics. And Bill's wife was late in giving birth to her first child. She was so late that Bill could have competed in the event and returned home in time to be with her when she gave birth.

People said, "What a shame." But Bill said he had no regrets. After all, his commitment to his wife was more important then, and it still was now. Bill Havens paid a high price to fulfill a commitment to the one he loved.

NOTE: If the above illustration is used offer this sequel as the ending of your sermon:

There is a sequel to the story of Bill Havens. The child eventually born to Bill and his wife was a boy, whom they named Frank. Twenty-eight years later, in 1952, Bill received a cablegram from Frank. It was sent from Helsinki, Finland, where the 1952 Olympics were being held. The cablegram read, and I quote it exactly: "Dad, I won. I'm bringing home the gold medal you lost while waiting for me to be born."

Frank Havens had just won the gold medal for the United States in the canoe-racing event, a medal his father had dreamed of winning but never did.

There is a sequel to our acts of commitment as well, our commitments to one another, and our commitment to God. In these sacrifices we make here in this life, we may...miss out. But, we shall receive a harvest of righteousness, a harvest of joy and peace that will endure forever.

23. See the Resemblance

Illustration

Larry Powell

In all prrobablity, you know of some young boy who bears such a striking resemblance to his father that a person would know immediately, even in a crowd, that they were father and son. The father can be seen in the son. The Bible tells us that "God was Christ!" In what ways did the Son resemble the Father?

a. In his life. Jesus affirmed and celebrated life. His was not the attitude that this world and all that is in it are despicably evil ... that the object is to totally reject life with an eye always on "glory" ... that beauty in any form must be repressed as a tool of the devil. No, instead, Christ affirmed and celebrated life. Not a recluse, he enjoyed friendships with Lazarus, Mary, Martha, and others. He observed simple domestic gestures and was so impressed by them that he gave them a prominent place in his teachings (a woman sweeping a house, or drawing water at a well, baking bread, old wineskins bursting with new wine, lamps flickering in the night, patches on old garments). He enjoyed and absorbed the movements in nature and referred to them in order to illustrate his message; birds gathering into trees, foxes going into dens, figs withering, storm clouds boiling. Jesus affirmed life in such a positive manner, experiencing and relating to God’s great intention and design for all he had made, that we may understand life is not to be either seized nor rejected, but "lived" in an attitude of "Praise God!" In the harmony of Christ’s life with creation, we see something of God’s great intention and design for each of us.

b. In his ministry. Jesus’ ministry was characterized by the absolute "giving" of himself. He was, as one theologian puts it, "radically obedient" to God. In the same spirit, he was "radically giving" to others, always reaching, touching, healing, praying, searching, loving. The Bell Telephone Company did not originate the concept of "Reach Out and Touch Someone." The concept was in the mind of God before creation and the practice is as old as Eden. It was perfected in Jesus Christ, proclaimed in the New Testament, and is as relevant today as this morning’s newspaper. The ministry of Christ reveals a God who "spends" himself for creation.

c. In his teaching. Jesus was able to recognize and relate to God in the common life through his teachings. His life, ministry, and teachings combined to reveal a God of boundless love, caring, concern, and sensitive compassion. What he taught, he practiced. Even in death he was consistent with the witness of his life. Having spoken of "forgiving one’s enemies" and those who "despitefully use you," he gathered his words into action on Calvary. "Father, forgive them," he prayed. He taught so very much more, all of which was personified in his life. He showed that if the "good teacher" is flawlessly consistent, how much more consistent and loving must be our heavenly Father?

d. In his resurrection. Here, God unmistakably reveals himself. His power is beyond imagination. His promises are made good. His intentions and purposes will not be overthrown. His actual involvement in the world is confirmed. In the resurrected Christ, God is clearly revealed. God was, in all ways, in Christ!

24. Have You Ever Tried to Discredit Someone?

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Isn't there a tendency on our part to try to discredit the experience of others when we are intimidated by their experience? Think about it for a moment. Haven't you ever felt threatened by a close friend, or even a family member, who moved to a new level of Christian commitment, and began to take his or her Christian discipleship more seriously?

Maybe she began to talk more - to witness. You've not heard this sort of language before, not from a person like her, President of the Junior League or the Garden Club. She talks about "being born again" or about prayers being answered in such an explicit manner...and somehow, we feel threatened.

Or, he decides he needs to deepen his involvement with Jesus, and so he goes to serve in the Salvation Army's Soup Kitchen or to help build a home for a poor family. It's so out-of-character with this white-collar executive. He even talks about meeting Jesus in the poor whom he serves! And maybe he even begins to criticize the church for its self-serving attitude and low level of involvement in community issues - like homelessness, hunger, child abuse....

Both of them join a weekly prayer or Bible study group and they love to talk about how they see Jesus changing people's lives, and that's just a bit much! That's taking this "Jesus thing" too far!

You see, our religious neutrality, our middle of the road faith, is threatened "whenever someone we know well takes spiritual commitments seriously and refuses any longer to play hide-and—seek and touch-and-go with the living God." (Carl F. H. Henry, Ibid, p. 149)

So we try to discredit it all. "He's beside himself".

25. The Collapsing Circle

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

Allan Nelson is a consultant to business operations throughout the world. Allan Nelson is also a deeply committed Christian. He ofttimes walks a fine line through life as he seeks to live out his Christian faith in the midst of a variety of culture clashes. One such clash for Mr. Nelson took place in 1978 in a visit to Soweto in South Africa. In a profound and exciting way he experienced in this land afar off the collapsing of a circle of innate suspicion and hostility.

Mr. Nelson was in South Africa on a business trip to advise American companies as to how they might best respond to pressures to do something positive in this world of apartheid. As a church-going man he determined to go to church somewhere in the city on Sunday morning. Quite intentionally he sought a place to worship in a black South African congregation. He wasn't at all sure he would be welcome in such a congregation. But he knew his scriptures. He knew that in Jesus Christ the barriers that separated people should be broken down. He hoped he would be accepted.

Allan was told that there was such a congregation just five blocks from his hotel. As he and a friend whom he invited to go with him walked those five blocks to church he was reminded at each step of the racial barriers that separated the races in South Africa in those days. "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" signs were everywhere. There was no mingling of the races anywhere. It became more clear to him than ever that white and black in South Africa were divided by huge walls of practiced hatred. Maybe he shouldn't go to a black church after all. Allan began to second guess his decision. But then the church loomed just ahead. He consciously submerged his fears of apartheid and nourished his hopes for a new kind of world where all the baptized are one in Christ Jesus.

Allan and his friend arrived early. They simply entered the empty church, found a seat, and waited. Slowly the members of the all black congregation began to file in. No one sat very close to them. Not close at all! In fact when the sanctuary was filled there was a large circle of empty seats that surrounded the two white Americans. Here they were. Two white faces surrounded by a sea of black faces as isolated as an island in the ocean. A lump came to Allan's throat. His fears now drowned out his hopes. Perhaps it was too much to expect that the circle of hatred could collapse even in a Christian church.

And then, before the service started, a woman got up and began to sing "Amazing Grace." Allan described her voice as one of the most beautiful he had ever heard. Allan was moved by her singing. It was beautiful. So beautiful, in fact, that when she started to sing verse two some great impulse from within prompted him to join his tenor voice to her song. They were singing. Just the two of them black and white in harmony.

An old woman from the back of the church came forward and touched him. "Jesus," she said softly. That was the one bond between them. And then Mr. Nelson committed an illegal act. He embraced the woman. They both wept. Suddenly, the circle of emptiness around them collapsed. People shoved up against Allan from every side. His hopes had won out over his fears. There was, indeed, one church, one baptism! Allan Nelson now says that this event changed his life forever. "

26. Three-in-one Oil

Illustration

Jef Olson

A faithful Christian couple had some bad news from their doctor. They couldn't have any children. On the way home from the doctor they went to see their pastor to ask for prayer. Being a small parish, and not well off, the pastor worked part time for the church and ran a car repair shop on the side, so they dropped by the shop. After they explained the situation, the pastor prayed for them on the spot. He looked around, grabbed a can of three-in-one oil and quickly blessed it to anoint them for healing.

About 9 months later they had triplets! The couple once again showed up at the pastor's study and as soon as the woman saw the pastor she ran up to him, threw her arms around him and gave him the biggest hug.

"What was that all about?" He asked.

She replied, "I'm just glad you used three-in-one oil and not WD-40!"

Prayer and motherhood go together like bread and wine. They are a necessary combination for us to begin, live, and successfully complete life.

27. Disagreements Happen

Illustration

King Duncan

Somewhere I read a true story about a chairman of a certain church committee who stood one Sunday morning before the congregation to present a minor matter of church business for a vote. After the vote, his next agenda item was to lead the congregation in singing several hymns. He confidently presented his project for a vote, fully expecting routine acceptance by the congregation. But to his surprise, the matter failed to win congregational approval. He was so completely rattled by this surprising turn of events that in introducing the next hymn, instead of inviting the group to join him in singing "I Stand All Amazed," he introduced it as "I Stand All Opposed."

It was an honest slip of the tongue on his part but that was how he was feeling. He felt that everyone in the church was opposed to him personally. That happens in the church. We will disagree. But Heaven help the congregation that gets out the barbed wire and begins erecting it down the center aisle of the sanctuary. "A house divided against itself..."

28. The Covenants of the Scripture

Illustration

Merrill F. Unger

Scripture's covenants and their significance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29. There Is Something about Jesus

Illustration

David E. Leininger

Malcolm Muggeridge, for most of his life a skeptic, following his conversion became wonderfully reflective. In his book, Jesus Rediscovered, he writes, "Beneath the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, a silver star marks the alleged precise spot where Christ was born. A stone slab nearby is supposed to mark the exact site of the manger wherein he lay. The Holy Land is littered with such shrines, divided up like African territories in the old colonialist days, between the different sects and denominations the Greeks, the Armenians, the Copts, the Latins, etc. and often a cause of rancor among them. Most of the shrines are doubtless fraudulent, some in dubious taste, and none to my liking. Yet one may note, as the visitors come and go, ranging from the devout to the inanely curious, that almost every face somehow lights up a little."

There is something about Jesus. And the question to the disciples comes again: "Who do YOU say that I am?" You must answer. And you. And you. And you and you. I would not expect your response to say anything about "proleptic" or "salvific" or "eschatological. "No, my prayer is that, with Simon Peter, you would simply say with every fiber of your being, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

30. The Temptation of Jesus

Illustration

Brett Blair

While filming a documentary in Israel, Malcolm Muggeridge began reflecting upon the Temptation of Jesus. Listen to his thoughts:

Curiously enough, just at the right moment to begin filming, when the shadows were long enough and the light not too weak, I happened to notice near by a whole expanse of stones, all identical, and looking uncommonly like loaves well baked and brown. How easy for Jesus to have turned these stoned loaves into edible ones, as, later, he would turn water into wine at a wedding feast! And, after all, why not? The Roman authorities distributed free bread to promote Caesar's kingdom, and Jesus could do the same to promote his. . .

Jesus has but to give a nod of agreement and he could have constructed Christendom, not on four shaky Gospels and a defeated man nailed on a Cross, but on a basis of sound socio-economic planning and principles… Every utopia could have been brought to pass, every hope have been realized and every dream been made to come true. What a benefactor, then, Jesus would have been. Acclaimed, equally, in the London School of Economics and the Harvard Business School; a statue in Parliament Square, and an even bigger one on Capitol Hill and in the Red Square. . . . Instead, he turned the offer down on the ground that only God should be worshipped.

31. Cookies and Milk, a Sacramental Meal

Illustration

Glenn L. Borreson

Albert Schmidt writes of being at the home of little five-year-old George after the funeral of George's seven-year-old brother, who was also his closest friend and playmate. Little George was so distraught at the gravesite that he had tried to jump into the grave himself. Now at home, he had buried himself and his grief under the bottom of the double-decker bed in their room. He wouldn't come out. He just said, "I'm here and I'm never coming out." His mother tried. Schmidt tried, talking until he was blue in the face. Nothing worked. Arguments. Bribes. Nothing. Finally, Schmidt said the Lord got his attention with a two-by-four; and with that, Schmidt got down on the floor, squeezed under the bed frame so the springs almost punctured his chest, and said to the grief-stricken little fellow, "Well, if you're going to stay here for the rest of your life, then I'm going to stay here with you."

Schmidt says this is what happened. "After fifteen minutes of eternity, George decided we would crawl out and join the rest of the folks. His mom gave us cookies and milk. It felt like a sacramental meal to me." ("Under the Double-Decker Bed," Tapestry, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985, pp. 123-124)

Cookies and milk, a sacramental meal. Yes, indeed, a taste of God's tomorrow. Even in our greatest pain and deepest hunger, in the limits beyond which none of us can see or go in certain moments of our lives, there is God. Always for us in bread and wine, sometimes even in milk and cookies. Just as it satisfied the crowd fed by Jesus long ago, so it will satisfy you today. You will have tasted God's tomorrow, and that is something. Enough for now.

32. Cook

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

1 Samuel 9:23 - "And Samuel said to the cook, ‘Bring the portion I gave you, of which I said to you, "Put it aside." ’ "

Cooking for the family was done by the woman, just as today, although, also as today, men occasionally did it. The only professional cooks were in the homes of the very wealthy, and the royalty, and these were probably female slaves. They were probably trained by a type of apprenticeship, and were usually very well treated.

The Jews liked eating in the open air, and would often take their meals in the courtyard; but in the winter they had to be indoors, usually in the one large room that served the family for all its needs. The times of meals were flexible - they ate when they were hungry. The great majority of the people had only two meals a day, the one very early before going to work; the other in the evening when work was done. The evening meal was the only one that required much preparation - the other was merely a snack affair.

A fire in the open air was often considered good enough for cooking: the custom was to hollow out a place and border it with two stones - indeed, the Hebrew word for a cooking fire comes from the same root as "to hollow." There were also little portable stoves with two holes, in which straw and grass were burned. Meat was roasted in an oven, cooked in oil, boiled in water, or cooked on a griddle. Most people preferred boiled meat and fowl. Fish was a staple of the Jews and was boiled or roasted on a wooden or iron spit over a charcoal fire. Many vegetables were eaten raw, but lentils and greens were boiled in oil or water.

The Jews liked their food strongly seasoned. They added not merely salt, but also mustard, capers, cumin, rue, saffron, coriander, mint, dill and jeezer (a kind of wild rosemary); all these were continually used, as well as garlic, onions, and shallots. Pepper was scarce and very expensive: it came in the caravans all the way from India.

Cooking utensils were a shallow iron plate and a frying pan, neither of which had handles until a later time. Cooking pots and dishes were of unbaked, unglazed clay. Deep-fat frying was done on a griddle. Copper kettles and pans were available in later times, but they were very costly.

Knives were made of flint and, later, bronze. Forks were used only in the preparation of food, not in the eating. A kind of flat, broad cup made of tinned metal served instead of a plate - metal because of the ritual uncleanness of earthenware - or else a flat cake of hard bread.

Of course, there were also obligations and restrictions connected with their food. There was the obligation of tithing the slightest thing that made part of any meal, so that the priests should have their due share. In the preparation of dishes, there were the following requirements: lamb had to be roasted over wood from the vine; halme, a kind of aromatic pickle, used for preserving fish, was so carefully regulated that a whole paragraph of the fourteenth chapter of the tractate Shabbath is devoted to it. But above all there were the laws concerning what might and might not be eaten, and it was exceedingly dangerous to disobey them. Pork was absolutely forbidden; the hare was considered an unclean animal; the rabbis disagreed about the camel, and some forbade use of its milk. There was a very rigorous prohibition against eating the flesh of any animal that had not been bled.

The cooks in wealthy households planned the menus, calculated the amount of food needed, bought the food, cut and boned meats and fowl, and the head cook supervised the preparation, cooking, and serving of the meal.\

Today’s cook or chef works in much the same way, depending, of course, on the type of home in which he serves. The most interesting change, perhaps, is the switch from women to men as the chefs and accepted masters of the cordon bleu of today.

33. The Key to the Beatitudes

Illustration

Owen Stepp

The idea of being poor in spirit is the key to all that is to follow in the Beatitudes. I like the note in the Life Application Bible:

You cannot mourn without appreciating how insufficient you are to handle life in your own strength.
You cannot be meek unless you know you have needed gentleness yourself.
You cannot hunger and thirst for righteousness if you proudly think of yourself as already righteous.
You cannot be merciful without recognizing your own need for mercy.
You cannot be pure in heart if your heart is full of pride.
You cannot be a peacemaker if you believe that you are always right.
You cannot identify with Christ in the face of negative reactions from others without dying to yourself and renouncing your own rights."

All of these beatitudes are rooted in humility, being poor in spirit.

34. Words of Encouragement

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

Steven Morris was a special needs child in Mrs. Bernaducci's class. Steven was a thin African-American boy who was blind. His handicap negatively impacted his self-esteem. However, over a period of time, the teacher realized that Steven had exceptional hearing.

One day she put the class mascot, a mouse, into the trash can. The scratching noise created a minor panic until Steven located the mouse. Mrs. Bernaducci exclaimed: "Steven, you are truly a wonder."

The nickname caught on. The next year little Stevie Wonder, full of a sense of his own value, began playing the piano. Stevie 'Wonder' would go on to influence and change American music all because of Mrs. Bernaducci's faith and encouragement.

We all need that kind of encouragement. Especially in times like this. Times that try our souls. Times that cause stress and uncertainty. Times when we want of word of direction from God but God seems to be silent.

We need a word of encouragement. And that's what we get when we come to this table. A little bit of bread and a little bit of wine remind us that Christ died for us to prove God's love for us.

35. How to Stay Humble in a Haughty World - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Coach Shug Jordan at Auburn University asked his former Linebacker Mike Kollin, who was then playing for the Miami Dolphins, if he would help his alma mater do some recruiting.

Mike said, "Sure, coach. What kind of player are you looking for?" The coach said, "Well Mike, you know there's that fellow, you knock him down, he just stays down?" Mike said, "We don't want him, do we, coach?"

"No, that's right. Then there's that fellow, you knock him down and he gets up, you knock him down again and he stays down." Mike said, "We don't want him either do we coach?"

Coach said, "No, but Mike, there's a fellow, you knock him down, he gets up. Knock him down, he gets up. Knock him down, he gets up. Knock him down, he gets up."

Mike said, "That's the guy we want isn't it, coach?" The coach answered, "No, Mike, we don't want him either. I want you to find the guy who's knocking everybody down. That's the guy we want."

That's the guy we want to be seen with! That we want to invite to our dinners and social gatherings because deeply it is the kind of people we want to be. We don't want to be seen with the guys who are always being knocked down the poor, crippled, the lame, the blind. But these are the very people, as we shall soon see, that we are encouraged to associate with.

Look with me as we examine Jesus' story about a party. As the guests arrive they are quickly grabbing the front row seats the places of honor. Assuming they are the most important guest, they will soon be embarrassed, Jesus says, by someone more distinguished. They will be asked to get up and move to the end of the table. They will be dishonored before all.

How do we avoid humiliation? How do you stay humble in a haughty world? There are two things that we must do.

Don't put yourself in a position to eat humble pie (verses 7-11).
We should not expect to be honored in this life (verses 12-14).

36. The Gospel According to the Hebrews

Illustration

William Barclay

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

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

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

37. What Do You Believe about Jesus?

Illustration

David E. Leininger

What exactly do you believe about Jesus? Some years ago, in my seminary days, our first course in Systematic Theology dealt with that question. Our professor described Jesus as "the proleptic, salvific, hidden appearance of the eschatological kingdom of God." Did you get that? Take notes; there might be a test at the end of this. "The proleptic, salvific, hidden appearance of the eschatological kingdom of God." On our way out of class that morning, with the words of our gospel in mind, we chuckled at the whole thing: "Jesus said to them, 'Who do YOU say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the proleptic, salvific, hidden appearance of the eschatological kingdom of God.' And Jesus answered him and said, 'WHAT???'"

Malcolm Muggeridge, for most of his life a skeptic, following his conversion became wonderfully reflective. In his book, Jesus Rediscovered, writes: "Beneath the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, a silver star marks the alleged precise spot where Christ was born. A stone slab nearby is supposed to mark the exact site of the manger wherein he lay. The Holy Land is littered with such shrines, divided up like African territories in the old colonialist days, between the different sects and denominations the Greeks, the Armenians, the Copts, the Latins, etc.—and often a cause of rancor among them. Most of the shrines are doubtless fraudulent, some in dubious taste, and none to my liking. Yet one may note, as the visitors come and go, ranging from the devout to the inanely curious, that almost every face somehow lights up a little."

There is something about Jesus. And the question to the disciples comes again: "Who do YOU say that I am?" You must answer. And you. And you. And you and you. I would not expect your response to say anything about "proleptic" or "salvific" or "eschatological." No, my prayer is that, with Simon Peter, you would simply say with every fibre of your being, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

38. Out of the Struggle of Honest Doubt

Illustration

Glenn E. Ludwig

I heard a pastor tell a story about a miracle that happen in the life of a 15-year-old girl during a weekend retreat. Quiet, reserved, shy, brilliant and troubled: that's how he described her. All weekend her hollow, lifeless eyes searched for answers to gnawing questions that had eroded her life and spirit and made her appear dark and despondent. But something happened: Her eyes became more restless and alert. She was searching and she somehow knew she was close to something.

The group had spent the weekend on the theme "Discovery" and had talked about discovery of self, of others, and of God. And as another 15-year-old shared the pain of her older sister's recent suicide, the dam broke and water, like baptism, washed a face that hadn't cried in a very long time.

Later on that evening, the group did a Bible study around Luke 9 where Jesus asked his disciples: "Who do people say that I am?" And later in the chapter where Jesus lays out the conditions for discipleship: "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." When the pastor asked the group what that sounded like -- a commercial, a Sunday school lesson, a parent laying down another rule -- the young girl with the tear-stained face responded: "It sounds to me like something worth giving my life to."

The pastor said "I sat with Thomas that night in the form of a 15-year-old girl and we shared some bread and wine in the presence of our Lord, Jesus Christ."

Do you see? Out of the struggle with honest doubt, a faith can be reborn, and new life can begin.

39. Friendship of Reconciliation

Illustration

Staff

He inaugurated the Feast of the Table. He gave them something by which to remember Him. Not a book, not a constitution for an institution, not rhetoric and resolution, not dogma and doctrine, but a fellowship of the table.

He would be the host, and He would be the nourishment for the meal symbolized by bread and wine. This is the fellowship which He had in mind. This table was to be one centering in the kind of friendship that was in Him for everyone.

This is the essence of the church. It is a fellowship, a friendship of reconciliation. It is a community of friends who cohere in and express the covenant/community of Jesus.

40. A Reminder of Our True Home

Illustration

Charles Hoffacker

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

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

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

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

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

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

41. How Much to Spend on The Poor?

Illustration

Richard Meyer

What happened at Jesus' anointing in Bethany has plagued the followers of Jesus from then until now. How much do we spend on ourselves and how much do we give to missions? Couldn't we do more good by giving all this money to the poor instead of spending it on, say, a new building?

In partial response to this question, my mind goes back to an experience of William Willimon, chaplain at Duke University. Willimon tells of the time the faculty of Duke was discussing a proposal to renovate the seminary chapel. They had received a modest proposal from the architect. But, would the chapel be renovated? No. "With all the poverty and hunger in the world," said one faculty member, "how can we as Christians justify spending $50,000 to pretty-up our chapel?" Of course, this person failed to offer similar objections when faculty salaries were raised each year, (a figure that collectively exceeds $50,000) nor does he question the morality of the luxurious faculty lounge. Obviously the man was posturing, just as Judas was posturing. Even so, the problem is tough. How much should we give to others and how much should we reserve for ourselves?

42. Backward Christian Soldiers

Illustration

Staff

Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.
Christ our rightful master Stands against the foe
Onward into battle, we seem afraid to go.

Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.

Like a might tortoise Moves the church of God.
Brothers we are treading, Where we've often trod.
We are much divided, Many bodies we,
Having different doctrines, but Not much charity.

Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.

Crowns and thrones may perish, Kingdoms rise and wane,
But the cross of Jesus Hidden does remain.
Gates of hell should never 'gainst the Church prevail,
We have Christ's own promise, but we think it might fail.

Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.

Sit here then ye people, Join our sleeping throng.
Blend with ours, your voices in a feeble song.
Blessings, ease and comfort Ask from Christ the King,
But with our modern thinking, We won't do a thing.

Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.

43. PRIEST

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Deuteronomy 26:4 - "Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God."

Among the nomadic tribes there was no developed priesthood. Religion partook of the general simplicity of desert life; apart from the private worship of household gods, the ritual observances were mainly visits to the tribal sanctuary to salute the god. with a gift of the first-fruits. These acts required no priestly aid; each man slew his own victim and divided the sacrifice in his own family circle; the share of the god was the blood which was smeared upon or poured out beside the stone set up as an altar. In the beginning, therefore, we find no trace of a sacrifical priesthood.

With the beginning of nationality, however, starting with the Exodus and developing into the Conquest, there was developed a unity of worship. However, even then, this unity was still not expressed in fixed institutions; the first-fruits were still a free gift, and every household represented and consumed them with his own family circle in a sacrificial meal without preistly aid.

In fact, rather than being just an officiator at sacrifice, the priest was the organ of revelation and he gave guidance in the ordinary affairs of life, the word for priest as adopted by the Hebrews from a Canaanite word, means "soothsayer," or "revealer." So, then, the function of the early priests was to reveal the word of God, either by reference to a legal code which contained the revealed will of God and the accumulated experience of the past.

Even after the people settled and sancturies were built, the role of the priest continued to be more of a judge than the person we think of as offering sacrifice. However, as more and more sanctuaries appeared and the Hebrews absorbed more of the ways of their neighbors, and, ultimately, with the establishment of the monarchy, a more and more elaborate ritual developed that required a professional priesthood.

There were regular public offerings maintained by the king and offered by the priests; private sacrifices required priestly aid; their judicial functions also brought them profit, since fines were exacted for certain offenses and paid to them. The greater priestly offices were therefore in every respect very important places, and the priests of the royal sanctuaries were among the grandees of the realm, but there is no indication of a hierarchy existing by divine right.

It was in post-exilic Israel that the priesthood as we usually think of it came into existence, although the reform by Josiah in 621 B.C. gave the prerogative of sacrifice to the priests alone. Already in the time of Josiah, altar service and not the judicial or "teaching" function had become the essential thing, but by the time of Ezekiel it had mainly to do with ritual, with the distinction between holy and profane, clean and unclean, with the statutory observances at festivals and the like.

The holiness of Israel centered in the sanctuary, and round the sanctuary stood the priests, who alone could approach the most holy things without profanation, and who were the guardians of Israel’s sanctity, partly by protecting the one meeting place of God and man from profane contact, and partly as mediators of the continual atoning rites by which breaches of holiness are expiated. In the old kingdom the priests had shared the place of the prophets as the leaders of thought were the psalmists and the scribes, who spoke much more directly to the piety of the nation.

From the foundation of the Hasmonean state to the time of Herod the history of the high priesthood merges into the political history of the nation; from Herod onward the priestly aristocracy of the Sadducees lost its chief hold over the nation and expired in vain controversy with the Pharisees.

Today, aside from the Roman Catholic Church, and the High Episcopal Church, we prefer to use the term "pastor" rather than priest for our spiritual leaders. But we must recognize the influence of the Hebrew priesthood on the thought and organization of Christendom. Two main points were taken over - the doctrine of priestly mediation and the system of priestly hierarchy. We cannot here go into doctrinal matters, but it is enough to say that the concepts of sacrifice which are still retained in the Roman system are the stumbling-block on which Protestant apologists fall. Within the Roman Church the old priestly system still is evident in many ways.

44. You Have Judged Yourself

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

A story related to this text has a group of the very pious waiting in heaven for the judgment. As they are waiting and complaining about the wait, they begin to see some of the "sinners" they knew on earth coming into the waiting room: a corrupt politician, an itinerant woman who had been convicted of shoplifting numerous times, a prostitute, a drug addict, a man who spent most of his life in prison, etc.

With each of these arrivals, the feeling of hostility increased in the first group. They glare at the others. They talk among themselves. Within a short time, words were spoken to those others, "What makes you think you're going to get in with that evil, sinful life you lived on earth?"

"We're relying on the mercy and grace of God. What makes you so sure you're going to get in?"

"Our good lives, of course." They turned their backs to the others.

Time began to drag on for the first group. They began to complain to one another. "If those other people get in, there's no justice. After all the sacrifices we've made. It's not fair."

The Lord arrived. He turned towards the first group, "I understand you've been wondering why there has been no judgment."

"Yes!" they cried out. "We want a judgment. We want justice."

"The judgment has already taken place. You've judged yourselves. By judging these, the least of my brothers and sisters, you have judged yourselves. In rejecting them you have rejected me. You have shown yourselves unworthy of the kingdom of God."

Hare says something similar in his conclusion to this section: "We are defiled, Jesus tells us, by the unloving words that spring so readily from our mouths."

45. You Can Go Home Again

Illustration

Max Lucado

Longing to leave her poor Brazilian neighborhood, Christina wanted to see the world. Discontent with a home having only a pallet on the floor, a washbasin, and a wood-burning stove, she dreamed of a better life in the city. One morning she slipped away, breaking her mother's heart. Knowing what life on the streets would be like for her young, attractive daughter, Maria hurriedly packed to go find her. On her way to the bus stop she entered a drugstore to get one last thing. Pictures. She sat in the photograph booth, closed the curtain, and spent all she could on pictures of herself. With her purse full of small black-and-white photos, she boarded the next bus to Rio de Janiero. Maria knew Christina had no way of earning money. She also knew that her daughter was too stubborn to give up. When pride meets hunger, a human will do things that were before unthinkable. Knowing this, Maria began her search. Bars, hotels, nightclubs, any place with the reputation for street walkers or prostitutes. She went to them all. And at each place she left her picture taped on a bathroom mirror, tacked to a hotel bulletin board, fastened to a corner phone booth. And on the back of each photo she wrote a note. It wasn't too long before both the money and the pictures ran out, and Maria had to go home. The weary mother wept as the bus began its long journey back to her small village.

It was a few weeks later that young Christina descended the hotel stairs. Her young face was tired. Her brown eyes no longer danced with youth but spoke of pain and fear. Her laughter was broken. Her dream had become a nightmare. A thousand times over she had longed to trade these countless beds for her secure pallet. Yet the little village was, in too many ways, too far away. As she reached the bottom of the stairs, her eyes noticed a familiar face. She looked again, and there on the lobby mirror was a small picture of her mother. Christina's eyes burned and her throat tightened as she walked across the room and removed the small photo. Written on the back was this compelling invitation. "Whatever you have done, whatever you have become, it doesn't matter. Please come home." She did.

46. Can't Do Both

Illustration

Staff

Owen Wister, an old college friend of Theodore Roosevelt, was visiting him at the White House. Roosevelt's daughter Alice kept running in and out of the room until Wister finally asked if there wasn't something Roosevelt could do to control her. "Well," said the President, "I can do one of two things. I can be President of the United States or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both."

47. Togetherness in the Eucharist

Illustration

Charles R. Leary

Bread suggests togetherness, care and love, hopes and dreams, fun and adventure.

Let's say some new friends invite you to their house for a meal. When you are a guest in their home, they are sharing their intimacy with you. They are sharing with you some of the privacy of that place where they live every day, eat every day, love every day, work on their problems, argue from time to time, sleep and depart for work and pleasure and return for rest, every day.

After graciously receiving you, they show you around their home in which they take deep pride. Then you go to the dining room for the meal. You find the table set with care, the food exceptionally delicious, and the conversation flows easily. Simply put, it becomes a lovely evening and you leave feeling full in every way. You enjoy bread from the kitchen, but much more. You enjoy the bread of being graciously received, the bread of informed and lively conversation, and the bread of being in beautiful surroundings..

Magnify that thousands of times and you begin to have a glimmer of what the church perceives the Holy Eucharist to be. In the Eucharist Jesus and "Bread of Life" are one. In the Eucharist bread and wine are the elements that nurture faith in God.

48. What Things Are Perfect Joy

Illustration

St. Francis of Assisi

How St. Francis, Walking One Day with Brother Leo, Explained to Him What Things Are Perfect Joy.

One day in winter, as St. Francis was going with Brother Leo from Perugia to St. Mary of the Angels, and was suffering greatly from the cold, he called to Brother Leo, who was walking on before him, and said to him: "Brother Leo, if it were to please God that the Friars Minor should give, in all lands, a great example of holiness and edification, write down, and note carefully, that this would not be perfect joy."

A little further on, St. Francis called to him a second time: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor were to make the lame to walk, if they should make straight the crooked, chase away demons, give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, and, what is even a far greater work, if they should raise the dead after four days, write that this would not be perfect joy." Shortly after, he cried out again: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor knew all languages; if they were versed in all science; if they could explain all Scripture; if they had the gift of prophecy, and could reveal, not only all future things, but likewise the secrets of all consciences and all souls, write that this would not be perfect joy."

After proceeding a few steps farther, he cried out again with a loud voice: "O Brother Leo, thou little lamb of God! if the Friars Minor could speak with the tongues of angels; if they could explain the course of the stars; if they knew the virtues of all plants; if all the treasures of the earth were revealed to them; if they were acquainted with the various qualities of all birds, of all fish, of all animals, of men, of trees, of stones, of roots, and of waters - write that this would not be perfect joy."

Shortly after, he cried out again: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor had the gift of preaching so as to convert all infidels to the faith of Christ, write that this would not be perfect joy." Now when this manner of discourse had lasted for the space of two miles, Brother Leo wondered much within himself; and, questioning the saint, he said: "Father, I pray thee teach me wherein is perfect joy." St. Francis answered: "If, when we shall arrive at St. Mary of the Angels, all drenched with rain and trembling with cold, all covered with mud and exhausted from hunger; if, when we knock at the convent-gate, the porter should come angrily and ask us who we are; if, after we have told him, ‘We are two of the brethren', he should answer angrily, ‘What ye say is not the truth; ye are but two impostors going about to deceive the world, and take away the alms of the poor; begone I say'; if then he refuse to open to us, and leave us outside, exposed to the snow and rain, suffering from cold and hunger till nightfall - then, if we accept such injustice, such cruelty and such contempt with patience, without being ruffled and without murmuring, believing with humility and charity that the porter really knows us, and that it is God who maketh him to speak thus against us, write down, O Brother Leo, that this is perfect joy. And if we knock again, and the porter come out in anger to drive us away with oaths and blows, as if we were vile impostors, saying, ‘Begone, miserable robbers! to the hospital, for here you shall neither eat nor sleep!' - and if we accept all this with patience, with joy, and with charity, O Brother Leo, write that this indeed is perfect joy.

And if, urged by cold and hunger, we knock again, calling to the porter and entreating him with many tears to open to us and give us shelter, for the love of God, and if he come out more angry than before, exclaiming, ‘These are but importunate rascals, I will deal with them as they deserve'; and taking a knotted stick, he seize us by the hood, throwing us on the ground, rolling us in the snow, and shall beat and wound us with the knots in the stick - if we bear all these injuries with patience and joy, thinking of the sufferings of our Blessed Lord, which we would share out of love for him, write, O Brother Leo, that here, finally, is perfect joy. And now, brother, listen to the conclusion. Above all the graces and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ grants to his friends, is the grace of overcoming oneself, and accepting willingly, out of love for Christ, all suffering, injury, discomfort and contempt; for in all other gifts of God we cannot glory, seeing they proceed not from ourselves but from God, according to the words of the Apostle, ‘What hast thou that thou hast not received from God? and if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?' But in the cross of tribulation and affliction we may glory, because, as the Apostle says again, ‘I will not glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Amen."

49. Born to Play This Game

Illustration

Brett Blair & Stephen Brown

During the 1980 Olympics, almost everyone expected that the Russian ice hockey team would defeat the United States team. Russia had won game after game against some of the finest professional teams in the world, and the amateurs from the United States didn’t seem to have a chance. The only thing uncertain was how big the Russian win would be. The United States’ victory is recalled by many as one of the most exciting in American sports history. But most people don’t know the words spoken to the United States team by Coach Herb Brooks just before the game - maybe one of the best pep talks in history. He simply said, "Gentlemen, you were born to play this game!"

The God who calls us, tells us: "You were born to reach out, to minister to a broken dying people. Do it well, do it with compassion because this is your function in the world."

Note: For a longer treatment of this illustration you can incorporate the coach's entire speech and pull out the memorable line "you were born to play this game" for emphases afterwards. Here's the full speech:

Great moments are born from great opportunity. And that’s what you have here, tonight, boys. That’s what you’ve earned here tonight.

One game… If we played ’em ten times, they might win nine. But not this game… Not tonight. Tonight, we skate with them. Tonight, we stay with them. And we shut them down because we can! Tonight, WE are the greatest hockey team in the world.

You were born to be hockey players, every one of you. And you were meant to be here tonight. This is your time. Their time is done. It’s over. I’m sick and tired of hearing about what a great hockey team the Soviets have. Screw ’em. This is your time. Now go out there and take it.

Clarification: Though this is the speech give by actor Kurt Russel in the movie "Miracle," the speech was written from the memory of team player Jack O'Callahan, and was confirmed as being pretty accurate by the rest of the 1980 team.

50. As the Twig Is Bent

Illustration

Larry Powell

Jesus sat as a child with other Jewish children on the dirt floor of the synagogue in Nazareth to receive instruction from the rabbi. Paul studied at the feet of Gamaliel. John Wesley received instruction at his mother’s knee and later received formal training from some of the most outstanding scholars of his time. Instruction served them, as it serves us, as a strong potion. We are not speaking of education in general here, though the same claim may be made for it. Some things can be learned on one’s own and achieved from personal experience apart from instruction. The focus here is upon that part of our knowledge which has come to us through intentional instruction. There are simply some things which we must be told and have translated or explained.

We are impressed that Jesus was commonly referred to as "Teacher." With all due respect to the group-dynamics people, Jesus did not arrange his hearers in a circle, arm himself with magic markers and newsprint, and ask, "All right, what do you want to talk about today?" To be sure, that is a legitimate technique for group sharing which indeed maximizes general participation, but Jesus chose to instruct. There were some things he had to tell which his listeners did not always know to ask, and we marvel not only at what he told, but also at the never-to-be-forgotten manner in which he told it. His instruction gathered meaning from the ordinary: yeast, birds, lilies, foxes, lost coins, sheep, patches on garments, bridegrooms, vineyards, seed, and the like. Even a major instruction in the closing hours of his ministry, the Last Supper, involved two articles which he knew would be on every table as a daily reminder of the lesson: bread and wine.

The Psalmist too, was given to putting his material in a manner easily remembered. For example, Psalm 119 cleverly arranges its lesson in acrostic form. The 176 verses contain 72 stanzas. Each stanza begins with a sequential letter of the Hebrew alphabet until all 22 letters are used. Simply stated, anyone who could remember the alphabet could memorize the Psalm.

Instruction informs. Information annihilates ignorance. Someone has claimed that we live in a day when we are faced with "third generation biblical illiterates." What a challenge to those of us who are called to instruct. Moreover, the popular quip, "You can believe anything and belong to such-and-such church" would seem to indicate that instruction is either not being laid out or is not being retained.

Instruction prepares. Alexander Pope put it simply: "Just as the twig is bent, the tree’s inclined."

Instruction serves. Tools for the journey and knowledge for the doing! Read 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and reflect on how religious instruction is profitable to those who aspire to follow the way of Christ. How is the Word of God, as the Psalmist proclaims, a "lamp to our feet and a light to our paths"?

Showing 1 to 50 of 440 results