Births in the ancient world were the domain of women. The women who bore children were often assisted in the birthing process by midwives (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:15–20). Although work was forbidden on the Sabbath, Jewish law permitted midwives to assist laboring women with births on the Sabbath because childbirth was viewed as saving a life.

Many women utilized a birthing stool (Exod. 1:16). Upon birth, the newborn often was washed with water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in cloths (Ezek. 16:4; Luke 2:7, 12). The OT required women to undergo a rite of purification following childbirth (Exod. 13:2, 20; 34:20; Lev. 12:6–8; Luke 2:22–24). This purification lasted forty days after the birth of a son and eighty days after the birth of a daughter and concluded with the sacrifice of both a burnt offering and a sin offering.

Birthing was valued, and women who were considered to be infertile often faced great shame (1 Sam. 1:10–11; Luke 1:25). Jewish tradition drew additional connections between childbirth and a woman’s character. For instance, death in childbirth was threatened for women who did not follow the law. Pain in childbirth was associated with the sin of Eve (Gen. 3:16), and conversely, absence of pain was interpreted as a sign that a woman was particularly righteous. According to Josephus, Moses was borne with no pain to his mother, and the Protevangelium of James indicates the same about Mary’s labor with Jesus.

The birthing process posed significant risk to both woman and child. Estimates of mortality rates for babies vary, but it is thought that as many as 50 percent of children did not survive beyond the age of five, with many failing to live through the first week outside the womb. Conservative guesses place the death rate for mothers around 5 percent. Death rates during childbirth were higher among Greek women, who often married younger than their Jewish counterparts and frequently suffered complications in childbirth due to their youth.

The Bible sometimes employs the language of birth as a spiritual metaphor. In John 3:3–6 Jesus instructs Nicodemus about the need for spiritual birth by explaining that he must be born again. In Rom. 8:22 Paul describes the whole of creation as experiencing the pain of childbirth as it awaits redemption, and in Gal. 4:19 he says that he is in labor for a second time with the Galatians as he desires the formation of Christ in them.

One of the many pictures of salvation that the Bible uses is new birth. Peter praises God because “he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). In his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus states, “No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3:3). He goes on to explain further that this act of new birth is the work of the Spirit (John 3:5–8). What Jesus speaks of, God had promised in the OT (Ezek. 36:25–27). Paul uses similar language when he asserts that God “made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions” (Eph. 2:5). Because of our sinful rebellion against God, humanity is spiritually dead. God the Father makes alive those who are spiritually dead by the work of the Spirit through the resurrection of Jesus. This new birth is the starting point for the believer’s moral transformation. See also Regeneration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Crosses

A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross could have several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at all but rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. This simple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with the addition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another form of cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, was shaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the upright beam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is also known as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that the apostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. A cross shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in the center.

Crucifixion in Ancient Times

In ancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by many peoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’s barbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheaded first, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stake or spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalement originally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut. 21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10). But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, still alive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method of execution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice of impalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’s officials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). In these verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as “gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,” and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period. Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalement as a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion. Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normal methods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil, impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick and easy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion, a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims on a stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousand inhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in 332 BC.

There is no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or a cross as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferred method of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public display of an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole” after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used in the book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39; 13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpse hanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devoured by vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not letting it remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why the Jews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before the Sabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree was especially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curse upon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixion in New Testament Times

Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolished crucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christian sacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

Roman Crucifixion

Crucifixion was a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim was either nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long, agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensive criminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists (Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonly were crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens were exempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor. Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war as victors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies upon crosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strength and intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners stripped their victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in public places where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminals often were flogged severely before crucifixion in a pseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experienced on the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post, and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips with sharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Such floggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrails exposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhausted themselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

After the flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, often weighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shoulders to the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standing seven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and was used repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretched out across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’s arms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollow spot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near the carpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak to support the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was a stronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the arms made the choice of little consequence. Either location was acceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through both wrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary to offer the victim a narcotic cocktail to help ease the pain of crucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

After the victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoisted up and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on the fatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerable amount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatic hypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid vertical shift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would drop to half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequently fainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during this upward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’ “lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus was quite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Next came the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different ways of nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious for twisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing them to the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretched downward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A support block typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight of the body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named “Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north of Jerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side of the heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driven through both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailed to opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddle the cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nail was driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearing free. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “the one hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, the victim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to the hot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road (cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirst was brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements (John 19:28).

Because death could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by a crushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to push their bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their blood circulating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain and usually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death following soon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approached to break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what was written in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will be broken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20). Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear into his side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water, indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was to fulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they have pierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were left on the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. The Jews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucified with him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening (John 19:31).

Physical Death by Crucifixion

Death by crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The most obvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven through the extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim lost a lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified also played a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to a depletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs failed due to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death was suffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on the cross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so the victims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deep breaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower until the lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumes of air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by using their legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victim from pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason for breaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

The ultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massive blood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and blood pressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress. This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of blood and water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, the right side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sac that surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. The soldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing both blood and water to flow out.

The Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

The OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Eternal life usually is mentioned in reference to human life, where it means unending life in the body, free from death. The expression, though most common in the NT, is drawn from the OT. The book of Daniel says that many who “sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:2). This yearning for eternal life is also expressed in Genesis, where those who eat of the “tree of life” will “live forever” (3:22). In Deuteronomy, God likewise declares, “I live forever” (32:40). Among the DSS, 4Q418 (frag. 69) and 1QS (4:7), both of which predate the NT, also refer to everlasting life.

The NT expression “eternal life” may seem to have a different meaning than the OT expression “everlasting life.” Any such appearance arises only in translation to English, for the underlying Greek words in the NT have the same meaning as the underlying Hebrew words in the OT. The words are already treated synonymously by the LXX, an ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (predating the NT).

The English word “eternal” may refer to eternity past and future, but in biblical usage that word does not generally refer to eternity past. This is evident where the NT mentions “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8) and “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). It is also indicated where eternal life is seen as a future reward for the righteous (Dan. 12:2; Luke 18:30; Rom. 2:7; Gal. 6:8; Titus 1:2; 1 John 2:25).

That life in the body is included in the NT concept of eternal life is evident from several considerations. Jesus says of everyone who believes in him, “I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:40). The bodily nature of everlasting life is indicated by Jesus’ own resurrection, for his tomb was left empty. Jesus says after his own resurrection that a spirit “does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). The apostle Paul even writes that without the resurrection the Christian faith is invalidated (1 Cor. 15:12–19). When Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he does not mean that resurrection is of the human spirit, but rather that perishable flesh and blood must first be made immortal (1 Cor. 15:50–54; 2 Cor. 5:4).

The prospect of eternal life is often contrasted with death and punishment, just as the Bible more generally contrasts the prospect of life with death and lawless behavior. In Gen. 3, the sin of Adam and Eve shows that people turn from God out of self-interest, so everlasting life is not given to them. Much later, the people of Israel are warned that they will suffer death if they break faith with the true God to follow other gods (Lev. 26; Deut. 28; 30:15–20). Later still, the book of Daniel warns plainly that resurrection is to everlasting life or to everlasting contempt (12:1–3). The NT likewise, drawing at times from the Hebrew prophets (e.g., Isa. 66:22–24), contrasts the prospect of eternal life with the prospect of punishment for doing evil (Matt. 25:31–46; John 5:28–29; Rom. 6:23; Gal. 6:8; Rev. 20:10–15; 22:1–6).

Just as eternal life is contrasted with death, eternal life is sometimes referred to more fundamentally and simply as “life” (e.g., Matt. 19:17; Acts 11:18; 1 John 3:14). All life comes from God, through his divine word (Gen. 1; Deut. 30:20; John 1:1–4). The NT says that God gave his Son the power to give eternal life, since the Son does only what God the Father commands (John 5:19–30; 6:57–58).

The NT promises eternal life to all who believe (trust) in God’s Son (John 3:16; 3:36; 6:40; 11:25–26; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). To believe in God’s Son is to believe that God sent Jesus (John 17:8), to listen to Jesus’ message from God and so believe in God (5:24; 12:44), and to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (20:31).

The belief in God and Jesus that secures eternal life is not mere mental assent, but rather is expressed in a life that turns from evil. Those who will receive eternal life are characterized by love rather than by hatred and murder (John 5:29; 1 John 3:14–15). Only the righteous will enter into eternal life, and they are marked by their care for Jesus’ brothers and sisters: feeding the hungry and clothing the poor (Matt. 25:31–46). They do not live for themselves, nor do they give free rein to all human desires, but instead they are led by, and walk in accordance with, the Spirit of God (John 12:25; Gal. 5:16–21; 6:8).

Because we lack precise knowledge of the Hebrew and early Christian beliefs about the relationship between the physical body and one’s spirit, discussions about flesh and spirit are difficult. Throughout both Testaments the word “flesh” usually refers to the physical body of both humans and animals, while the word “spirit,” although less specific, generally refers to the persona of an individual, that part of a human that relates most closely to God. Contrasting these, the prophet Isaiah says that the enemy Egyptian horses are “flesh and not spirit,” and so he implies that the spirit is stronger than the flesh. Isaiah says that those living in Jerusalem should put their trust in God and not the flesh (Isa. 31:3).

Probably the most specific instance of flesh and spirit being discussed together is in John 3:6, where the author quotes Jesus saying, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” English translations capitalize the first of the two occurrences of the Greek word pneuma (“spirit”) in this verse, inferring that it is the Spirit of God who gives birth to the human spirit. Jesus tries to explain to Nicodemus that a person must be born again by the Spirit of God, much as a human birth produces human flesh.

In another passage, Jesus talks about the difference between the flesh and the spirit by first telling the disciples that they need to eat his flesh (John 6:53–54). This is taken to be a reference to the Eucharist and the need for the disciples to participate in that communion. Next, Jesus notes that his words are spirit and life; this draws a contrast between the physical “flesh” of the Eucharist service and the “spirit” of the words of God (John 6:63).

Paul, in the Letter to the Ephesians, draws a similar distinction between the flesh and the spirit when he says that the Christian struggle against the devil is “not against flesh and blood,” that is, against physical forces, but rather against “spiritual forces of evil” (6:12). Paul’s point is that Christians must not engage in warfare against physical forces of evil so much as they must struggle against those spiritual things that can harm one’s faith. This theme is again picked up in Phil. 3:1–11, where Paul says that circumcision of the flesh, which is a mutilation of the flesh, gains a person nothing, whereas those who worship by the Spirit of God have obtained the true circumcision and have gained Christ and the righteousness that comes through faith in him.

However, 1 John 4:1–3 warns that not every spirit is from God. John encourages his readers to “test the spirits” to determine whether they are truly from God. Interestingly, for John, this test involves the acknowledgment that Jesus came in the flesh from God.

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

Imagery of God

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

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

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

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

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

Names and Attributes of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God of the Trinity

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

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

Scientifically, light may be described as electromagnetic radiation, exhibiting qualities of both waves and particles, traveling 186,282 miles per second from a light source, such as the sun or a lightbulb. In contrast, ancient Mediterranean thought presupposes that light, a kind of fire and fundamental constituent of matter, emanates from the human eye like a beam; and for some, the intensity of its radiance and luminosity depends upon the morality and direction of the seer’s heart. Even today, many Europeans are fearful of the “evil eye,” when a person is able to curse other human beings by merely looking at them. Jesus refers to the evil eye as emanating from an evil heart (Mark 7:22 [NIV: “envy”]; see also Gal. 3:1). Contemporary experiences of this seemingly counterintuitive reversal of empirical reality are the common perception of being watched from behind (turning and seeing that, in fact, this was the case), the luminous screen of the imagination, dreams after closing one’s eyes, and expressions such as Shakespeare’s “death-darting eye.”

Jesus appropriates this popular assumption for the sake of his point: “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light” (Matt. 6:22). Another way of translating the verse is “If the eye is focused, your whole body will be enlightened.” In the larger context, Jesus is exhorting disciples to turn their eyes from Mammon (wealth as an idol) to God’s throne, where their real treasure is (Matt. 6:19–24). He claims that only those with pure hearts will see God (Matt. 5:8). Paul speaks of the “eyes of your heart” (Eph. 1:18), which are opened by the Holy Spirit—a phenomenon that he experienced on the way to Damascus, which, ironically, led to the temporary blindness of his eyes to see Christ, who was at the right hand of the Father in heaven (Acts 9:1–19; cf. 2 Cor. 3:7–18). The Bible does not require that light be limited to either the scientifically objective or the experientially subjective perspective; it appropriates the phenomenon to elucidate a deeper reality to creation and God, the possibility of seeing the light beyond light.

God begins his creation with light, which precedes the creation of sun, moon, and stars and throughout Scripture is an unqualified good (Gen. 1:3–5, 15–18; Exod. 10:23; 13:21). The comfort of light is more difficult to appreciate in a world that runs on electricity. In the ancient world, people rarely traveled at night and usually went to bed soon after sunset. The only light in the home was a small oil lamp set on a stand, which burned expensive olive oil. Light is a biblical synonym for life (Job 3:20; John 8:12). Seeing the light means living (Ps. 49:19; see also Job 33:30). Conversely, darkness is often a symbol of adversity, disaster, and death (Job 30:26; Isa. 8:22; Jer. 23:12; Lam. 3:2). Death is likened to the extinguishing of a flame (Prov. 13:9; Sir. 22:11). God initially overcame the chaotic darkness when he created light, and ultimately God’s own glory will replace light in the new heavens and earth (Rev. 21:23–25). It is therefore not surprising that God is often associated with light (James 1:13–18).

John, who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claims that God is light (1 John 1:5). The predicate appropriates the intrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s hearts back to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truth and signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of the world (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’s holiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John 3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the place of fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7). See also Light of the World.

Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancient Israel or the early church, archaeology informs us what they were like. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for a wick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech. 4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persian period, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece. Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle, were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanterns were developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which had been used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus in Gethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).

Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1 Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).

The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2 Sam. 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).

Old Testament

Preconditions to love. According to the OT, three preconditions must exist for us to know what it means to love.

First, we have the capacity for relationships because we are made in the likeness of a personal God. God created us to reciprocate love back to him, in a relationship of mutual love.

Second, the true meaning of love depends on a true understanding of God, whose love causes him to pursue human beings even though their hearts have turned away from him for other substitute “loves.” This second point assumes that human beings still love, but they do so in a way distorted by sin. Sin causes human beings to live their lives as though God did not exist. However, God in his mercy has chosen to intervene through his redemptive acts in history and through revelatory speech in order to deliver people from the blindness and corruption of sin. His pursuit of his unfaithful sons and daughters gives us a picture of what true love looks like.

Third, God’s pursuit of human beings in history was by means of election and the establishment of a covenant. God chose to make himself known to a particular people, those who would descend from Abraham. God called Abraham to leave his country and go to a new place that he would inherit as a new homeland, where his descendants would be blessed (Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17). God’s promise to Abraham took the form of an everlasting covenant, by which he guaranteed that he would fulfill what he had promised. He would be the God of Abraham’s descendants, and they would be his people. They would receive the land of Canaan as an inheritance (17:6–8). In response, Abraham’s descendants were to obey God’s covenant by circumcising their male children (17:9–14). This covenant would depend not on human faithfulness but on God’s faithfulness. God would redeem this people to be his own special people.

Several generations later, God addressed the people through Moses, telling them that he chose them for no other reason than that he loved them (Deut. 7:7–8). Through Moses, God freed the people from their slavery in Egypt and gave them the law. The law told them how to live holy lives in response to God. It also included the provisions for atonement through the sacrificial system. In short, loving God involved obeying his statutes.

Love in wisdom books. The OT wisdom books Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes give us further insight into the meaning of love. Proverbs exhorts its readers, “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (4:23). One’s affections are the gateway to the allegiances of one’s heart. Once one’s affections have been hijacked by sinful passions, allegiance to God is subjugated to another “master.” To the degree that sin usurps the throne of the heart, it will steer the course of one’s actions (i.e., one’s “path”).

In the book of Job, Satan is convinced that Job serves God only because God blesses Job, so Satan challenges God to let him afflict Job. Satan insists that if God removes Job’s blessings, Job will curse God to his face (1:10–12). When God agrees to remove the hedge of protection and allows Job to suffer, the depth of Job’s love for God is vindicated. Although perplexed that God would allow him to endure such suffering, he endures without forsaking God. Job loved the giver more than his gifts, so his love did not turn to hatred when the gifts of God were removed.

In the book of Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth (the Teacher) reflects honestly on the many vain pursuits and unexplainable dissonances that characterize life “under the sun.” Only faith-filled love for God can enable one to live each moment of life with joy instead of striving to find meaning in “under the sun” pursuits. This love chooses to trust the inscrutable wisdom of God in the face of life’s many enigmas, uncertainties, and sufferings. One can do this honestly because of the belief that God’s just rule over the affairs of the universe will be vindicated at the future day of judgment (Eccles. 12:14).

Marriage metaphor. The Bible uses the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s covenant relationship with his people (Isa. 54:5–8). This metaphor captures the intimate character of the relationship that God desires to have with his people. Marriage is the most intimate human relationship in two ways. First, marriage is a relationship in which knowledge is the most intimate. A spouse can see many of the flaws that are hidden from others. Thus, each spouse must accept and love the other for who that person is, in spite of his or her imperfections. Second, the depth and passion of the expressions of love are most intimate in marriage. Consequently, there is no greater pain than that caused by unfaithfulness to this covenant.

Sadly, as the story of the OT unfolds, God’s “wife” betrays him. How so? His people worship idols in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1–5). Because God is jealous for the exclusive love of his people, idolatry is spiritual unfaithfulness. God wants both the allegiance and the affection of their hearts to be reserved exclusively for him. The people continue the formalities of worship, but their hearts have turned away from God. The book of Hosea illustrates the sense of betrayal that God feels when his people are spiritually unfaithful. God tells Hosea to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to him. Subsequently, she leaves Hosea for one lover after another. This story is intended to give God’s people a vivid picture of how painful their spiritual betrayal of him is. His heart is crushed by the rebellious and idolatrous condition of his people. Hosea’s wife ends up on the market as a prostitute, and God tells him to buy her back and love her again.

New Testament

The story of God’s love for his people is expanded by what the Father did centuries later when he sent Jesus to pay the ransom for the sins of his people so that they might be healed of their rebellion and receive eternal life (John 3:16; 17:24). The death and resurrection of Christ were necessary because sin had to be atoned for. This love is a free gift that comes to the one who trusts in Christ for forgiveness of sin and a new heart. The new heart inclines one to please God. The gift of the Spirit enables one to bear the “fruit” of love (Gal. 5:22–23). As Abraham’s engrafted children (Gal. 3:7), believers are called by God to live as pilgrims on their way to a heavenly promised land (Heb. 11:9–10; 1 Pet. 2:11).

Christ modeled genuine love by serving us (Mark 10:42–45). His love should motivate us and enable us to practice sacrificial service toward others (Matt. 22:39; 1 John 3:16). It should also cause us to practice forbearance, long-suffering, and forgiveness toward those who wrong us (Matt. 18:21–35). It should cause us to repay evil with good (Rom. 12:14). Our love for truth should motivate us to act in the best interests of others (1 Cor. 13:4–8) in the hope that they may become reconciled to God (2 Tim. 2:24–26).

Nicodemus is mentioned by name five times in Scripture, only in the Gospel of John. He was a Pharisee and a member of the ruling council of the Jews (the Sanhedrin), and most of what we know about him comes from John 3. He came for discussion with Jesus at night, presumably to avoid being detected while having an amicable interaction with Jesus. Unlike his colleagues, Nicodemus recognized the authority of God in Jesus because of the miracles. Yet Nicodemus failed to understand the true nature of spiritual things (3:4–9) that Jesus subsequently explained to him (3:11–21). Jesus noted that since Nicodemus was a teacher in Israel, he should have understood such things (3:10).

Later, Nicodemus showed a sympathetic disposition toward Jesus when the rulers of the Pharisees aligned themselves against Jesus. Nicodemus noted that the law forbade condemnation before examination, and the other leaders reproached him for his defense of Jesus (John 7:50–52).

Then, after Jesus’ crucifixion, Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea with the preparation and entombment of the body of Jesus (John 19:38–42). The testimony of Nicodemus prior to this time had been silent or less overt in front of the council, and this more overt act at the burial may testify to his conversion to discipleship of Jesus.

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

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

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

A title applied to teachers and others in respected positions, literally meaning “my master.” By the NT era, the term was used in a more specific sense to refer to teachers of the Mosaic law.

In the NT, the title occurs only in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and it is most commonly used to address Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel the disciples three times address Jesus as “Rabbi” (Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45). In Matthew’s Gospel only Judas calls Jesus “Rabbi” and only in the context of betraying Jesus (Matt. 26:25, 49). The title is used more widely in John’s Gospel by individuals such as Nathanael and Nicodemus, as well as the group of disciples (John 1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). The title conveys the respect of pupil for master and indicates the nature of the relationship that Jesus had with his followers.

Others were also called “Rabbi,” including John the Baptist and some of the Pharisees (John 3:26; Matt. 23:7). Although the Pharisees considered the title an honor, Jesus instructed his disciples not to allow themselves to be addressed as “Rabbi” and to acknowledge only one teacher, Christ (Matt. 23:8, 10). See also Rabboni.

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

New Testament

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

Components

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

Prepositions of Salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tenses of Salvation

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

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

Conclusion

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

The serpent (nakhash) initially appears in Gen. 3:1, endowed with wisdom and the capacity to speak. In addressing Eve, it intentionally changes God’s positive command to eat from all trees of the garden, with one exception, to a comprehensive prohibition and then goes on to contradict God and promise that eating will make Adam and Eve “like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5). While an explicit identity for the serpent is not given at this point, the curse pronounced against the creature (Gen. 3:14–15) has transcendent implications (cf. Rom. 16:20). By the first centuries BC and AD, the serpent became linked with the malevolent figure of Satan, the devil, the great dragon. This connection is most comprehensively articulated for the Christian community in Rev. 12:9–15; 20:2. Eve acknowledged its deceptive wiles (Gen. 3:13), a point that both Jesus (John 8:44) and Paul (2 Cor. 11:3) reinforce.

Deadly snakes were recognized and feared denizens of the great and terrible wilderness (Deut. 8:15) as the Israelites made their way toward the promised land. When the people spoke against God and Moses, God sent burning serpents that bit the people (Num. 21:6–9). Moses’ action in elevating a bronze serpent on the pole served as the paradigm for Jesus’ reference to lifting up the Son of Man (John 3:14) and the necessity of belief in the unlikely prospect of a crucified Messiah. Later, this bronze snake became an object of worship, and Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kings 18:4). Because serpents were so dangerous, their venom was a figure for utterly destructive evil (Ps. 140:3).

Isaiah 27:1 moves the sphere of activities from barren wilderness to tumultuous water: “In that day, the Lord will punish with his sword—his fierce, great and powerful sword—Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.” The same motif is evident in Ps. 74:13–14, which declares that God broke the “heads” of the sea monsters and smashed the “heads” of Leviathan (cf. Gen. 3:15). The “fleeing serpent” of Isaiah also appears in Job 26:12–13, which describes God cutting Rahab in pieces and piercing the “gliding serpent.” Around the central figure of the serpent, a land creature, are watery glimpses of the mythic and shadowy Leviathan, a sea monster, and Rahab, all of which represent a creature opposed by God. It is likely that this malevolent cosmic figure is lurking below the surface of the crocodile-infested waters of Job 41, a subtle but powerful closure to the contest with which the book commenced; although Job could not restrain Leviathan, God does.

The motifs that recur in these passages were also part of the mythologies of cultures surrounding ancient Israel. The Enuma Elish (a Babylonian creation story) depicts the violent battle between the goddess Tiamat and the god Marduk that involved monster-serpents and roaring dragons. Closer to Israelite culture, in the Canaanite myth of Baal and Anat, we read that Anat claimed to crush the crooked serpent with seven heads. Just as serpents and related figures in the biblical text occasionally crossed the flexible boundaries between good and evil, in the wider cultural context of the ancient Near East the serpent served as a metaphor for a vast complex that included life, fertility, and wisdom, as well as chaos and death.

For the Christian community receiving the Revelation of John, “the great dragon, that ancient serpent” (20:2), presented a powerful metaphor. Wise, shrewd, quick, beguiling, and terrifying, it had been in opposition to God in the age-old conflict between good and evil, the reality of which was expressed across cultural boundaries and a part of which was enveloping the church in the Roman Empire of late antiquity. Even its defeat was not instantaneous; the “head” of the serpent, struck by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, would bear one final blow; the cosmic evil would be ultimately and completely defeated to accomplish the purposes of God. See also Venomous Serpent.

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Holy Spirit

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

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

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

Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is under God’s command. The Hebrew word ruakh sometimes is translated as “wind” but other times can mean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen. 1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is most often used in the NT to denote wind.

Old Testament. Throughout the OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8 declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind in storehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God uses wind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends a wind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark to recede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea during the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail in from the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 11:31).

Wind can also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plague upon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land; afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea (Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from the desert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse, killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In the book of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’s ship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint and desire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject of wind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6; Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).

While a single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6), many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of the heavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the south wind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing a garden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west wind specifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the east wind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with military terms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatter ships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) or shrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuing the east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, the four winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bring life (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan. 7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).

God rides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2 Sam. 22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 the winds are called God’s “messengers.” This imagery is strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite god Baal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind (Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent upon wind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh in the whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successful contest against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:11–12).

The wisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besides its power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind is the inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov. 11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under the sun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Empty talk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blow away chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as a metaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).

New Testament. In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus by emphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27). Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8 for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit. Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John the Baptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind. It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally, a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a sound like a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills all those in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).

In classical Greek, “world” (kosmos) communicated the idea that the external universe is a well-ordered system. In early Greek usage, the term was used with reference to specific types of social orderings, such as the seating order of rowers (Homer, Od. 13.77), the order of soldiers (Homer, Il. 12.225), and well-ordered political states such as Sparta (Herodotus, Hist. 1.65).

Created World

In the OT, the notion of the created “world” departed from the Greek understanding specifically in that creation is never seen as an independent entity controlled by an impersonal, all-embracing order. Rather, the universe, usually described with the phrase “the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; 2:1, 4; Ps. 113:6; Jer. 10:11) or at times the “all” or “all things” (Ps. 103:19; Jer. 10:16), is always understood in its relationship to its creator: “He who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—he says: ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other’ ” (Isa. 45:18). Here, the “world” (“earth”) refers to the material elements that make up the planet (see also Jer. 32:17; Zech. 12:1) and the sum total of the entire universe (cf. Acts 17:24). Even in the account of creation in Gen. 1:1–2:4, where many of the elements of the physical world are mentioned (waters, firmament, stars, etc.), the primary intent of the account is to convey that God is Lord over everything because he is the Creator. Often these created elements that make up the world are praised not for their own inherent beauty, but as a testimony to the majesty, supremacy, and omnipotence of the Creator (Pss. 8; 19:1–6; 33:6–9). In Ps. 148:3–6 the elements within the natural order (kosmos) are instructed to praise God: “Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created, and he established them for ever and ever—he issued a decree that will never pass away.”

Though not providing a comprehensive description, the OT does at times refer to how the world is constructed as a whole. The “vault” (Gen. 1:6–20 [RSV: “firmament”]) of heaven separates the waters above from the waters below (which are restrained by God’s sovereign care [Gen. 1:7; 7:11; 49:25]), and this area or chamber rests on “pillars” (Job 26:11). At times the earth is described as a disc with the sanctuary as its center point (Judg. 9:37; Ezek. 38:12), which rests on pillars (Job 9:6). There is an underworld, from which there is no return (Job 10:21); however, the OT does not engage in the kind of speculation regarding the underworld as is evident in the Greco-Roman tradition.

Earth and Its Inhabitants

The term “world” conveys other nuances in the Bible. It often refers to the inhabitants of the earth or the place of human life: “He rules the world in righteousness and judges the peoples with equity” (Ps. 9:8 [cf. Pss. 96:13; 98:9]); or, “Come near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it!” (Isa. 34:1). Also, in the Gospels “world” is used in this way: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36). Matthew 4:8 refers to all the kingdoms of the world. Also the expressions “coming into the world” (John 1:9; 3:19), “in the world” (John 1:10; 2 Cor. 1:12), and “leave this world” (1 Cor. 5:10) can be understood as referring to the sphere of human life.

Ungodly Culture and Worldview

“World” can also refer to something more than the material world or humanity in general; it can refer to the entire cultural value system or world order that is hostile toward God. The “world” is a common biblical way of referring to the ungodly worldview and lifestyle that characterize human life in its rebellion against the Creator. The course of the world is profoundly affected by fallen humans, through whom death came into the world and rules over it (Rom. 5:12). Therefore, Paul can claim that “the whole world” has become guilty before God (Rom. 3:19), and even the created world is affected by such rebellion (8:20–22). Paul especially links “this world” with “this age” (1 Cor. 3:19; 5:10; Eph. 2:2 NET), which God has judged (Rom. 3:6). John declares that Satan is the “prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Paul refers to Satan as the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4 ESV, NRSV, NASB), who is able to blind individuals to the truth and who animates human rebellion (Eph. 2:2). In this sense, God and the world are strictly separate: “Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4). Because of this call to an exclusive relationship with God, believers are mandated to resist and even confront the world. Followers of Christ must not be taken captive by philosophy or the “elemental spiritual forces of this world” (Col. 2:8, 20), since, as Paul says, “the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).

But it is the world that designates the location and object of God’s saving activity. Indeed, God sent his Son into this world in order to reconcile it to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God, “takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Out of love for this world, God sent his Son (John 3:1), not to judge it but to save it: “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17).

Although believers live in the world (1 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:15) and must have dealings with the world, ultimately they are not of the world (John 17:14). Remaining in Christ, believers are able to demonstrate in the world the belief and practice of the new commandment to love (John 13:34; 15:9). Therefore, Christians must maintain a critical distance from the world’s system: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:15–16 [cf. James 1:27; 4:4]). Believers are to avoid the seductive power of the world and not abandon themselves to it; they are to follow their Lord in proclaiming God’s project of reconciling the world to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:18).

Old Testament

Preconditions to love. According to the OT, three preconditions must exist for us to know what it means to love.

First, we have the capacity for relationships because we are made in the likeness of a personal God. God created us to reciprocate love back to him, in a relationship of mutual love.

Second, the true meaning of love depends on a true understanding of God, whose love causes him to pursue human beings even though their hearts have turned away from him for other substitute “loves.” This second point assumes that human beings still love, but they do so in a way distorted by sin. Sin causes human beings to live their lives as though God did not exist. However, God in his mercy has chosen to intervene through his redemptive acts in history and through revelatory speech in order to deliver people from the blindness and corruption of sin. His pursuit of his unfaithful sons and daughters gives us a picture of what true love looks like.

Third, God’s pursuit of human beings in history was by means of election and the establishment of a covenant. God chose to make himself known to a particular people, those who would descend from Abraham. God called Abraham to leave his country and go to a new place that he would inherit as a new homeland, where his descendants would be blessed (Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17). God’s promise to Abraham took the form of an everlasting covenant, by which he guaranteed that he would fulfill what he had promised. He would be the God of Abraham’s descendants, and they would be his people. They would receive the land of Canaan as an inheritance (17:6–8). In response, Abraham’s descendants were to obey God’s covenant by circumcising their male children (17:9–14). This covenant would depend not on human faithfulness but on God’s faithfulness. God would redeem this people to be his own special people.

Several generations later, God addressed the people through Moses, telling them that he chose them for no other reason than that he loved them (Deut. 7:7–8). Through Moses, God freed the people from their slavery in Egypt and gave them the law. The law told them how to live holy lives in response to God. It also included the provisions for atonement through the sacrificial system. In short, loving God involved obeying his statutes.

Love in wisdom books. The OT wisdom books Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes give us further insight into the meaning of love. Proverbs exhorts its readers, “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (4:23). One’s affections are the gateway to the allegiances of one’s heart. Once one’s affections have been hijacked by sinful passions, allegiance to God is subjugated to another “master.” To the degree that sin usurps the throne of the heart, it will steer the course of one’s actions (i.e., one’s “path”).

In the book of Job, Satan is convinced that Job serves God only because God blesses Job, so Satan challenges God to let him afflict Job. Satan insists that if God removes Job’s blessings, Job will curse God to his face (1:10–12). When God agrees to remove the hedge of protection and allows Job to suffer, the depth of Job’s love for God is vindicated. Although perplexed that God would allow him to endure such suffering, he endures without forsaking God. Job loved the giver more than his gifts, so his love did not turn to hatred when the gifts of God were removed.

In the book of Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth (the Teacher) reflects honestly on the many vain pursuits and unexplainable dissonances that characterize life “under the sun.” Only faith-filled love for God can enable one to live each moment of life with joy instead of striving to find meaning in “under the sun” pursuits. This love chooses to trust the inscrutable wisdom of God in the face of life’s many enigmas, uncertainties, and sufferings. One can do this honestly because of the belief that God’s just rule over the affairs of the universe will be vindicated at the future day of judgment (Eccles. 12:14).

Marriage metaphor. The Bible uses the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s covenant relationship with his people (Isa. 54:5–8). This metaphor captures the intimate character of the relationship that God desires to have with his people. Marriage is the most intimate human relationship in two ways. First, marriage is a relationship in which knowledge is the most intimate. A spouse can see many of the flaws that are hidden from others. Thus, each spouse must accept and love the other for who that person is, in spite of his or her imperfections. Second, the depth and passion of the expressions of love are most intimate in marriage. Consequently, there is no greater pain than that caused by unfaithfulness to this covenant.

Sadly, as the story of the OT unfolds, God’s “wife” betrays him. How so? His people worship idols in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1–5). Because God is jealous for the exclusive love of his people, idolatry is spiritual unfaithfulness. God wants both the allegiance and the affection of their hearts to be reserved exclusively for him. The people continue the formalities of worship, but their hearts have turned away from God. The book of Hosea illustrates the sense of betrayal that God feels when his people are spiritually unfaithful. God tells Hosea to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to him. Subsequently, she leaves Hosea for one lover after another. This story is intended to give God’s people a vivid picture of how painful their spiritual betrayal of him is. His heart is crushed by the rebellious and idolatrous condition of his people. Hosea’s wife ends up on the market as a prostitute, and God tells him to buy her back and love her again.

New Testament

The story of God’s love for his people is expanded by what the Father did centuries later when he sent Jesus to pay the ransom for the sins of his people so that they might be healed of their rebellion and receive eternal life (John 3:16; 17:24). The death and resurrection of Christ were necessary because sin had to be atoned for. This love is a free gift that comes to the one who trusts in Christ for forgiveness of sin and a new heart. The new heart inclines one to please God. The gift of the Spirit enables one to bear the “fruit” of love (Gal. 5:22–23). As Abraham’s engrafted children (Gal. 3:7), believers are called by God to live as pilgrims on their way to a heavenly promised land (Heb. 11:9–10; 1 Pet. 2:11).

Christ modeled genuine love by serving us (Mark 10:42–45). His love should motivate us and enable us to practice sacrificial service toward others (Matt. 22:39; 1 John 3:16). It should also cause us to practice forbearance, long-suffering, and forgiveness toward those who wrong us (Matt. 18:21–35). It should cause us to repay evil with good (Rom. 12:14). Our love for truth should motivate us to act in the best interests of others (1 Cor. 13:4–8) in the hope that they may become reconciled to God (2 Tim. 2:24–26).

The age to come is the time when Christ will return and establish his kingdom in all its fullness and glory. The Jews living in intertestamental times experienced great persecution and sufferings and looked ahead in hope and anticipation to a future coming age of a messiah, with all its associated blessings. Both John the Baptist and Jesus pointed to how this new age had already drawn near with their message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus taught that “the kingdom of God has come upon you” during his earthly ministry (Matt. 12:28), and he promised that anyone who has been born again can “see” or “enter” the kingdom right then (using present-tense verbs in John 3:3, 5). At the same time, Jesus was equally clear that the kingdom had not come in all its fullness during his earthly ministry, and he instructed his disciples to continue to look ahead and pray specifically, “your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10). Consequently, many have described the kingdom as being both “already” and “not yet” in the sense that God’s kingdom has already begun with Christ’s first coming, even though the fullness of the kingdom still lies in the future. Thus, in one sense “the age to come” began with Jesus’ earthly ministry, especially his death and resurrection. Peter could also describe the giving of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost as taking place in “the last days” (Acts 2:17), thus marking the beginning of the age to come. Consequently, believers find themselves living in the tension between already experiencing the transforming power of a new life in Christ and still living in what the Bible elsewhere describes as “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) under the power of Satan as “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). The challenge for believers is to look ahead by faith and “lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age” (1 Tim. 6:19), when Christ will return and fully establish his kingdom. See also Advent, Second; Eschatology; Second Coming.

A transliteration of a Hebrew word from the root meaning “to verify, confirm,” therefore expressing support and agreement. The term is used in four ways: (1) To agree with a command (1 Kings 1:36), prophecy (Jer. 11:5; Rev. 1:7), or solemn oath (Num. 5:22), and as a concluding endorsement of an entire book (e.g., Gal. 6:18; Jude 25; Rev. 22:21). (2) To give an affirmative response and express grateful thanks to God in the context of worship (e.g., 1 Chron. 16:36; Ps. 41:13; Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21). (3) By Jesus to introduce important sayings. In the Synoptic Gospels a single “amen” is used (Matt. 5:18; Mark 8:12), while in John’s Gospel the “amen” is doubled (John 1:51; 3:3; 5:19). Some versions adapt the “amen” construction, translating it as, for example, “Very truly I tell you” (NIV) or “Truly I tell you” (NRSV). The formula points to the unique authority of Jesus’ word in contrast to the OT prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord. The construction has no parallel in OT literature, thus pointing to Christ’s exalted status. (4) As a personal name for Christ. He is called “the Amen” in the letter to Laodicea (Rev. 3:14), alluding to Isa. 65:16, where God is twice described as “the God of truth” (lit., “the God of amen”). Jesus is the true and faithful witness of the new creation in contrast to the lamentable failure of the Laodiceans, whose compromise and ineffective witness threatened imminent judgment.

Through habitual use, the “amen” can become nothing more than a liturgical full stop, signifying the conclusion of a prayer. In reality, it signifies wholehearted commitment to what has been said or sung. The seriousness of the “amen” is seen in the instructions of Moses to the people of God (Deut. 27:14–26). The power of the “amen” is rooted in Christ, who is the “Yes” of all God’s promises; this in turn becomes the basis for the confident “Amen” of his people (2 Cor. 1:20).

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A flag, streamer, emblem, or carved object raised on a pole. On the ancient battle field, raised banners and blown trumpets served as the primary tools for mass communication. They could indicate troop movements and serve as rallying points (Isa. 18:3). Once the battle was won, banners proclaimed victory. Cloth banners usually were colored and carried symbols to represent a particular group, whether it was a military unit, clan, tribe, or nation (Num. 2:2; Ps. 60:4). The actual appearance of Israelite banners is unknown, but the images of banners from other nations have been found carved into ancient reliefs. For example, the Narmer Palette (c. 3000 BC) shows three different kinds of banners raised above the heads of soldiers.

The earliest reference to a banner in the Bible occurs after the Israelites defeated the Amalekites at Rephidim near Mount Sinai. To commemorate the victory, Moses built an altar and named it Yahweh nissi, “The Lord is my banner” (Exod. 17:15). In a sense, Moses’ raised hands served as banners to encourage the Israelites by assuring God’s presence and victory (17:11–13).

When Moses placed the bronze serpent on a pole, he raised it as a banner for the Israelites to look upon it and be healed (Num. 21:8). Jesus drew a parallel between the raised serpent and the raising up of the Son of Man (John 3:14). Metaphorically, Jesus was a banner lifted up to proclaim salvation for the world.

An interesting use of banner is in Song 6:4, where the woman is described as “majestic as troops with banners.” The man is so in awe of his beloved that it mesmerizes him and causes his heart to race. The NIV renders Song 2:4 as “let his banner over me be love,” the idea being that the man would make his love for his beloved public.

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

An early, tangible reminder of the goodness of God in rescuing his people from their sins (NIV: “bronze snake”). During the wilderness wanderings, the land of Edom lay in the path of the Israelites. The Israelites requested permission to pass through Edom, which the Edomites strongly denied (Num. 20:14–21). Forced to circle around Edom and head far out of their way, the Israelites began to complain yet again (Num. 21:4–5; see also Exod. 15:22–24; 16:1–3; 17:1–7). God responded by sending venomous snakes that killed many people (Num. 21:6). When the people admitted their sin and asked Moses to pray to God on their behalf, God commanded Moses to do a strange thing: he was to make a snake and put it on a pole. “Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (21:9).

This seemingly insignificant and bizarre episode in Israelite history resurfaces twice in the Bible. The good king Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent during his purification of the land of Judah from idolatrous worship. The writer of Kings explains that the serpent, which had come to be called “Nehushtan,” had itself become an idol, as the Israelites had been burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4). Jesus also makes mention of the bronze serpent in his famous dialogue with Nicodemus. In speak­ing of his impending death, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he, the Son of Man, must be lifted up from the earth, “just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert” (John 3:14). Those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life because of his being lifted up—that is, crucified (see John 12:32–34). Jesus’ reference to the bronze serpent emphasizes the simplicity of salvation through Christ. Just as the Israelites needed only to look to the bronze serpent, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from physical death, so also those who are dying in their sins need only look to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from spiritual death.

An early, tangible reminder of the goodness of God in rescuing his people from their sins (NIV: “bronze snake”). During the wilderness wanderings, the land of Edom lay in the path of the Israelites. The Israelites requested permission to pass through Edom, which the Edomites strongly denied (Num. 20:14–21). Forced to circle around Edom and head far out of their way, the Israelites began to complain yet again (Num. 21:4–5; see also Exod. 15:22–24; 16:1–3; 17:1–7). God responded by sending venomous snakes that killed many people (Num. 21:6). When the people admitted their sin and asked Moses to pray to God on their behalf, God commanded Moses to do a strange thing: he was to make a snake and put it on a pole. “Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (21:9).

This seemingly insignificant and bizarre episode in Israelite history resurfaces twice in the Bible. The good king Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent during his purification of the land of Judah from idolatrous worship. The writer of Kings explains that the serpent, which had come to be called “Nehushtan,” had itself become an idol, as the Israelites had been burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4). Jesus also makes mention of the bronze serpent in his famous dialogue with Nicodemus. In speak­ing of his impending death, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he, the Son of Man, must be lifted up from the earth, “just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert” (John 3:14). Those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life because of his being lifted up—that is, crucified (see John 12:32–34). Jesus’ reference to the bronze serpent emphasizes the simplicity of salvation through Christ. Just as the Israelites needed only to look to the bronze serpent, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from physical death, so also those who are dying in their sins need only look to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from spiritual death.

An early, tangible reminder of the goodness of God in rescuing his people from their sins (NIV: “bronze snake”). During the wilderness wanderings, the land of Edom lay in the path of the Israelites. The Israelites requested permission to pass through Edom, which the Edomites strongly denied (Num. 20:14–21). Forced to circle around Edom and head far out of their way, the Israelites began to complain yet again (Num. 21:4–5; see also Exod. 15:22–24; 16:1–3; 17:1–7). God responded by sending venomous snakes that killed many people (Num. 21:6). When the people admitted their sin and asked Moses to pray to God on their behalf, God commanded Moses to do a strange thing: he was to make a snake and put it on a pole. “Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (21:9).

This seemingly insignificant and bizarre episode in Israelite history resurfaces twice in the Bible. The good king Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent during his purification of the land of Judah from idolatrous worship. The writer of Kings explains that the serpent, which had come to be called “Nehushtan,” had itself become an idol, as the Israelites had been burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4). Jesus also makes mention of the bronze serpent in his famous dialogue with Nicodemus. In speak­ing of his impending death, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he, the Son of Man, must be lifted up from the earth, “just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert” (John 3:14). Those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life because of his being lifted up—that is, crucified (see John 12:32–34). Jesus’ reference to the bronze serpent emphasizes the simplicity of salvation through Christ. Just as the Israelites needed only to look to the bronze serpent, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from physical death, so also those who are dying in their sins need only look to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from spiritual death.

In the Bible chaos primarily refers to an opposite condition to the orderliness of the creation or a mythical force often represented by the sea or the sea monster(s) (translated as “dragon,” “Leviathan,” or “Rahab”). The two related ideas are based on the creation accounts recorded in Gen. 1–2 and other places.

Old Testament. In Gen. 1:2 chaos is the state of darkness and desolation (note the phrase “formless and empty” [Heb. tohu wabohu], which probably refers to the state of desolation of water with nothing in it; cf. Isa. 34:11; 45:18). The rest of the chapter describes how God in his absolute sovereignty and power—only with his words—creates order in place of the chaos. God brings light to the darkness, separates the land from the sea, and provides the land with abundance. The portrayal of the garden of Eden (2:4–14) further describes God’s provision of orderliness, fertility, eternal life, and harmony in the original creation.

Although the Genesis account does not directly mention any mythical elements (i.e., the primordial combat between the sea and the prime god), other passages describe creation as the event in which God calmed the raging sea and killed the sea monsters (Pss. 74:12–17; 89:9–12; Job 26:7–14). Still, nowhere are the chaotic forces presented as an independent power that constantly challenges God’s sovereignty. Rather, God always does whatever he pleases with them, lifting up the waves of the sea (Ps. 107:25; Jer. 31:35; cf. Ps. 146:6) and uncovering Death and Destruction (Job 26:6). Isaiah alludes to God’s slaying of the chaotic sea creature not only as the past event (51:9), but also as the promise to be realized in the day of the Lord (27:1).

In Genesis, God’s judgment is frequently described by means of the chaos motif, as a pre­creation condition reversed—for example, loss of harmony, fruitfulness, and eternal life (Gen. 3:15–24), return of the waters over the land (Gen. 7–8), loss of communication (11:7–9), and desolation of the fruitful land (19:23–28; cf. 13:10).

The chaos motif also plays an important role in the prophetic descriptions of God’s judgment against his people and against the foreign nations. Noteworthy is Jer. 4:23–26, which depicts God’s judgment upon his people in terms of chaos’s return—that is, the condition of “formless and empty,” without light, creatures, or fruitful land (cf. Hos. 4:3). In Isa. 34:11 God’s judgment upon Edom is expressed with the characteristic phrase in Gen. 1:2: “God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos [tohu, ‘formless’] and the plumb line of desolation [bohu, ‘empty’].” In other places Isaiah frequently employs the imageries of desolation (5:6; 7:23–25; 13:19–22; 24:1–13; 34:8–17), darkness (5:30; 8:22; 13:10), and flood (8:7–8).

New Testament. The concept of chaos developed in the OT provides an important background for understanding the NT. The Gospel writers use the chaos motif in describing Jesus’ person and work—for example, as light in the darkness (John 1:4–9; 3:19), as provider of abundance and eternal life (John 3:16; 4:14; 5:51; 6:1–15), and as the sovereign ruler of the chaotic sea, who walks on the water (Matt. 14:22–36; Mark 6:47–55; John 6:16–21) and calms the stormy sea with his words (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25). Jesus’ resurrection is his ultimate demonstration of his reign over death (cf. 1 Cor. 15).

Paul further uses the chaos motif to describe the life of sinners or the sinful world. The identity of believers is changed from “darkness” to “light” or “children of light,” who now must shine the light in the world (Eph. 5:8; cf. Matt. 5:15–16; Phil. 2:15).

In the book of Revelation the ultimate restoration of the perfect creation order is presented, making allusions to the OT mythical descriptions of the chaotic forces (e.g., Satan as the dragon [12:15–16], Death and Hades as the underground forces [20:13–14]). Particularly, the new Jerusalem is the place of no sea or darkness or death (21:1, 4, 23–25) but of fruitfulness and eternal life (22:1–2).

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Terminology

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

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

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

The Nature of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacraments

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

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

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

Worship

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

Service and Organization

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

Conversion, signifying “to turn around” or a change of course in life, is closely related to repentance, although the two are by no means synonymous.

Conversion as part of God’s saving work. Both the OT and the NT present conversion as a crucial stage of God’s saving work for people. The leading metaphor for conversion in the OT is turning back (from sin, to God), mostly conveyed by the Hebrew word shub and its derivatives (turning from immorality and injustice and toward God in Isa. 55:7; turning away from idols in Ezek. 14:6). The NT likewise uses the metaphor of turning. Another metaphor for conversion is that of birth, evidenced in concepts such as becoming God’s children (Matt. 18:3), rebirth (1 Pet. 1:3), and being born again or born from above (John 3:3).

Although the rich concept of conversion may reflect an enormous range of events and actions in one’s life, what is central to the claim of conversion appears to be a definitive and radical change in one’s beliefs and practices. Conversion typically accompanies or, in some accounts, follows repentance of one’s sinful life. The call for repentance permeates the prophetic teachings in the OT, and it is significant that both John the Baptist and Jesus began their public ministry with their own prophetic call for repentance (Matt. 3:1–2; Mark 1:14–15). What distinguishes the NT teaching on repentance from its OT counterpart is that in the OT the prophets operated with the assumption that their audience was already in the covenantal relationship with God (“return to your God” [often using the Hebrew word shub]), whereas in the NT the invitation is extended to the Gentiles to “turn to God” (see Acts 26:20). In this regard, conversion is more distinctively a NT and Christian idea, firmly rooted in the broader sense of repentance.

The idea that humans need conversion to get right with God implies that the status quo of human existence, characterized by sin, is inadequate. God therefore has taken initiative to change it radically. In this sense, conversion is fundamentally God’s work applied to humans. In addition, conversion clearly requires a human response, which can take many different forms. The emotional component of one’s conversion experience can vary: both exuberance resulting from knowing the merits of redemption and sorrow prompted by recognizing the seriousness of one’s destitution are part of the complex spectrum of emotions relating to conversion. In the account of the Philippian jailor’s conversion (Acts 16), the jailor shows his desperation to escape his present crisis, a desire to be saved, and the joy that follows his decision to turn to Christ. Zacchaeus’s conversion is noteworthy for his willful reversal of his wrongdoings at a high personal and financial cost (Luke 19:8).

The conversion experience. It will be fruitful to use the most famous conversion account in the Bible as a template to understand the conversion experience in general. The biblical record of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1–27; 22:1–21; 26:9–23; see also 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8–10; Gal. 1:15–17) demonstrates at least these distinct elements: (1) encountering the unknown yet powerful (mysterious, divine, etc.) being; (2) realizing one’s wrongdoings in the past; (3) surrendering to that being; (4) hearing the call for one’s life and gaining a renewed sense of direction.

Probably echoing OT metaphors of conversion and drawing from his own conversion experience, Paul describes the experience of Gentile believers as “turn[ing] to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Paul himself had a radical “turning around” on the road to Damascus, and he explained in his account before King Agrippa that his mission, as spoken to him by the risen Jesus, was to turn Jews and Gentiles “from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18). Although the accounts of individual conversion experiences show rich variations, all converts essentially have made this transition.

Conversion, signifying “to turn around” or a change of course in life, is closely related to repentance, although the two are by no means synonymous.

Conversion as part of God’s saving work. Both the OT and the NT present conversion as a crucial stage of God’s saving work for people. The leading metaphor for conversion in the OT is turning back (from sin, to God), mostly conveyed by the Hebrew word shub and its derivatives (turning from immorality and injustice and toward God in Isa. 55:7; turning away from idols in Ezek. 14:6). The NT likewise uses the metaphor of turning. Another metaphor for conversion is that of birth, evidenced in concepts such as becoming God’s children (Matt. 18:3), rebirth (1 Pet. 1:3), and being born again or born from above (John 3:3).

Although the rich concept of conversion may reflect an enormous range of events and actions in one’s life, what is central to the claim of conversion appears to be a definitive and radical change in one’s beliefs and practices. Conversion typically accompanies or, in some accounts, follows repentance of one’s sinful life. The call for repentance permeates the prophetic teachings in the OT, and it is significant that both John the Baptist and Jesus began their public ministry with their own prophetic call for repentance (Matt. 3:1–2; Mark 1:14–15). What distinguishes the NT teaching on repentance from its OT counterpart is that in the OT the prophets operated with the assumption that their audience was already in the covenantal relationship with God (“return to your God” [often using the Hebrew word shub]), whereas in the NT the invitation is extended to the Gentiles to “turn to God” (see Acts 26:20). In this regard, conversion is more distinctively a NT and Christian idea, firmly rooted in the broader sense of repentance.

The idea that humans need conversion to get right with God implies that the status quo of human existence, characterized by sin, is inadequate. God therefore has taken initiative to change it radically. In this sense, conversion is fundamentally God’s work applied to humans. In addition, conversion clearly requires a human response, which can take many different forms. The emotional component of one’s conversion experience can vary: both exuberance resulting from knowing the merits of redemption and sorrow prompted by recognizing the seriousness of one’s destitution are part of the complex spectrum of emotions relating to conversion. In the account of the Philippian jailor’s conversion (Acts 16), the jailor shows his desperation to escape his present crisis, a desire to be saved, and the joy that follows his decision to turn to Christ. Zacchaeus’s conversion is noteworthy for his willful reversal of his wrongdoings at a high personal and financial cost (Luke 19:8).

The conversion experience. It will be fruitful to use the most famous conversion account in the Bible as a template to understand the conversion experience in general. The biblical record of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1–27; 22:1–21; 26:9–23; see also 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8–10; Gal. 1:15–17) demonstrates at least these distinct elements: (1) encountering the unknown yet powerful (mysterious, divine, etc.) being; (2) realizing one’s wrongdoings in the past; (3) surrendering to that being; (4) hearing the call for one’s life and gaining a renewed sense of direction.

Probably echoing OT metaphors of conversion and drawing from his own conversion experience, Paul describes the experience of Gentile believers as “turn[ing] to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Paul himself had a radical “turning around” on the road to Damascus, and he explained in his account before King Agrippa that his mission, as spoken to him by the risen Jesus, was to turn Jews and Gentiles “from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18). Although the accounts of individual conversion experiences show rich variations, all converts essentially have made this transition.

Conversion, signifying “to turn around” or a change of course in life, is closely related to repentance, although the two are by no means synonymous.

Conversion as part of God’s saving work. Both the OT and the NT present conversion as a crucial stage of God’s saving work for people. The leading metaphor for conversion in the OT is turning back (from sin, to God), mostly conveyed by the Hebrew word shub and its derivatives (turning from immorality and injustice and toward God in Isa. 55:7; turning away from idols in Ezek. 14:6). The NT likewise uses the metaphor of turning. Another metaphor for conversion is that of birth, evidenced in concepts such as becoming God’s children (Matt. 18:3), rebirth (1 Pet. 1:3), and being born again or born from above (John 3:3).

Although the rich concept of conversion may reflect an enormous range of events and actions in one’s life, what is central to the claim of conversion appears to be a definitive and radical change in one’s beliefs and practices. Conversion typically accompanies or, in some accounts, follows repentance of one’s sinful life. The call for repentance permeates the prophetic teachings in the OT, and it is significant that both John the Baptist and Jesus began their public ministry with their own prophetic call for repentance (Matt. 3:1–2; Mark 1:14–15). What distinguishes the NT teaching on repentance from its OT counterpart is that in the OT the prophets operated with the assumption that their audience was already in the covenantal relationship with God (“return to your God” [often using the Hebrew word shub]), whereas in the NT the invitation is extended to the Gentiles to “turn to God” (see Acts 26:20). In this regard, conversion is more distinctively a NT and Christian idea, firmly rooted in the broader sense of repentance.

The idea that humans need conversion to get right with God implies that the status quo of human existence, characterized by sin, is inadequate. God therefore has taken initiative to change it radically. In this sense, conversion is fundamentally God’s work applied to humans. In addition, conversion clearly requires a human response, which can take many different forms. The emotional component of one’s conversion experience can vary: both exuberance resulting from knowing the merits of redemption and sorrow prompted by recognizing the seriousness of one’s destitution are part of the complex spectrum of emotions relating to conversion. In the account of the Philippian jailor’s conversion (Acts 16), the jailor shows his desperation to escape his present crisis, a desire to be saved, and the joy that follows his decision to turn to Christ. Zacchaeus’s conversion is noteworthy for his willful reversal of his wrongdoings at a high personal and financial cost (Luke 19:8).

The conversion experience. It will be fruitful to use the most famous conversion account in the Bible as a template to understand the conversion experience in general. The biblical record of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1–27; 22:1–21; 26:9–23; see also 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8–10; Gal. 1:15–17) demonstrates at least these distinct elements: (1) encountering the unknown yet powerful (mysterious, divine, etc.) being; (2) realizing one’s wrongdoings in the past; (3) surrendering to that being; (4) hearing the call for one’s life and gaining a renewed sense of direction.

Probably echoing OT metaphors of conversion and drawing from his own conversion experience, Paul describes the experience of Gentile believers as “turn[ing] to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Paul himself had a radical “turning around” on the road to Damascus, and he explained in his account before King Agrippa that his mission, as spoken to him by the risen Jesus, was to turn Jews and Gentiles “from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18). Although the accounts of individual conversion experiences show rich variations, all converts essentially have made this transition.

The foundational story in all of the OT is the story of creation, found in Gen. 1–2. Throughout the history of interpretation there have been many approaches to understanding these chapters. In the modern world, discoveries from both science and archaeology have challenged some traditional convictions, and debates continue to rage. Still, what Gen. 1–2 communicates is generally clear: (1) it establishes Yahweh, the God of Israel, as the God by whose word all exists; (2) it presents for ancient readers a compelling argument for why they should worship Israel’s God and not other gods of the ancient world. On this second point, it must be remembered that Israel’s belief in one God flew in the face of contemporary religious notions, where each nation had a high god along with lesser gods. Hence, when reading Gen. 1–2, we must keep in mind its ancient polemical dimension rather than approaching it with modern expectations.

The differing perspectives of Genesis 1 and 2. Even a quick reading of Gen. 1–2 shows that the perspectives on creation in the two chapters are somewhat different. Genesis 1 is ordered famously as a seven-day process, whereby humanity is created as the pinnacle of God’s work on day six. On the seventh day, as is well known, God rested. Much has been made among some Christians about the need to read this chapter literally, but that no longer seems to be the dominant view. Much less is a scientific explanation winning the day (where the details of the text correspond to certain scientific models, which are themselves disputed). A commonly accepted understanding of these chapters among Christians goes by various names, and it attempts to account for the poetic structure of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1:2 we read that the earth was “formless and empty.” What follows is a description of God providing “form” in days one through three and then a corresponding filling of the “emptiness” in days four through six. Hence, in day one God separates light from darkness, and in day four he fills the void with the sun, the moon, and the stars. Day two yields the expanses between the waters and the sky, and day five fills the voids with water creatures and sky creatures. Day three yields the land and vegetation, and day six fills the void with land creatures, the crowning achievement being humanity.

Genesis 2 provides a different perspective on the events. It seems that humanity is created before there were any shrubs or plants. Apart from this difference in order, more important is the focus on Adam and Eve and their role in creation, as those called to work the land together. These two perspectives are not contradictory, since one can easily understand Gen. 2 as explicating Gen. 1:26–30. Modern scholarship has largely assigned these two versions to two different literary sources (see Documentary Hypothesis), a theory based not only on the different perspectives of the two stories but also on other differences, such as language and style. Regardless of the alleged origins of these stories, however, they are presented to us together in the OT. As a unit, along with what follows in Gen. 3–11, these early chapters in Genesis in some ways stand in stark contrast to creation stories of the ancient Mesopotamian world, while at the same time adopting many of the concepts and much of the language of those stories.

Modern and ancient questions. To enter into this discussion is to ask, “What are these opening chapters of Genesis trying to say? How did the Israelites hear the creation story in Genesis?” It sometimes is tempting to read the creation story and ask modern questions. For example, “How does the Genesis creation narrative conform to scientific knowledge?” Modern questions such as these are not, in and of themselves, out of bounds. In fact, they may be unavoidable to a certain degree. But we must remember that ancient Israelites did not ask such questions. In the ancient Near East described in Genesis, which is thousands of years old, there was no science in any sense close to the way we think of it today.

The creation story was written not to answer modern questions but rather to address Israel’s questions. Beginning about the middle of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, archaeologists discovered a number of creation stories from different peoples of the ancient Near East that help put the biblical account in context. These accounts tell stories of creation in which a number of gods are responsible. In one prominent example from ancient Babylon, creation was a result of a bloody conflict among the gods. Genesis 1 shares some of the descriptions of one or more of these other accounts (e.g., light exists before the creation of the sun, the moon, and the stars).

The theology of creation. Where Gen. 1 stands out is in its insistence that Israel’s God alone created the world through his spoken word. The purpose of such a declaration is not to satisfy contemporary intellectual curiosities about the nature of matter or the first moments of the universe’s existence. Its purpose is to declare to the Israelites that their God, not the gods of the ancient world, is responsible for everything there is, and that he alone is the one, therefore, who is worthy of their worship. The creation story is not an intellectual exercise but rather a deeply religious one. The Israelites lived in a world where every surrounding nation had a plurality of gods (pantheon). The Israelites were different. They had one God, and this is the message that rings loud and clear from Gen. 1.

That Yahweh, Israel’s God, is alone the creator is not an abstract theological statement. It is a call to worship. This is why, for example, numerous passages in the OT burst out in praise of Yahweh the creator. One example is Ps. 19. God’s glory is so great and so apparent that even creation itself is said to speak of it. The psalm uses specific Genesis language: the “heavens” and the “firmament” proclaim what God has done (these words occur in Gen. 1:1, 6–8, and the Hebrew words in Gen. 1 and Ps. 19 are the same). Even though the heavens and the firmament have no powers of speech, as the psalm tells us (19:3–4), nevertheless they are “heard” throughout the world because of the awesomeness of the sun’s circuit (19:5–6). The message is this: if you want to see how great God is, look up.

But the psalm does not end there. David is not simply interested in a contemplative posture for his people. Six verses about creation are followed, somewhat abruptly, by eight verses about the law. Clearly, a connection between them is being established, and that connection seems to be fairly straightforward: knowing God as creator should have an effect on how you behave. The God who created the heavens is also the God who gave you the law, David seems to be saying. And as worthy as God is of praise for the creation (even the heavens and the firmament join in), so too is the law. It is to be desired more than gold or sweet honey (v. 10). Knowing God as creator has very practical implications.

Creation and re-creation. Another important recurrence of creation in the OT, which also has practical implications, concerns God’s saving activity. In brief, according to the OT (and the NT as well), when God saves his people, it is an act of “re-creation.” One can see this theme developed in numerous places. For example, God is Israel’s “maker” in texts such as Ps. 95:6; Hos. 8:14. These two texts are found in the context of God having delivered the Israelites from Egypt; their deliverance corresponds to their “creation” as God’s people. Similarly, Isa. 43:14–17 concerns Israel’s captivity in Babylon and what God will do to deliver his people. The prophecy describes their deliverance by using “exodus” language and in doing so refers to Yahweh as Israel’s “Creator” (v. 15).

This connection between creation and redemption (re-creation) is also well articulated in the NT. For example, the opening words of John’s Gospel echo the very first verses of the Bible: “in the beginning.” With the coming of Christ, there is a new beginning. His act of redemption is described as the act of a second or new Adam (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:22). When one confesses faith in Christ, one is “born again” or “from above” (John 3:3, 7; see also John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23). To be a Christian is to start over, to begin anew, or as Paul put it, “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Cor. 5:17). And in Rev. 22:2 paradise is described as containing a “tree of life,” to which God’s people once again have access. At the end, in other words, it will be as it was in the beginning. In the coming of Christ we see a new creation. That new creation is inaugurated in his first coming, where the church, his redeemed people, by the power of the Spirit, live as newly created beings in a fallen world. At his second coming, this new creation will be complete, and all creation will be redeemed.

Types of Crosses

A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross could have several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at all but rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. This simple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with the addition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another form of cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, was shaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the upright beam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is also known as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that the apostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. A cross shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in the center.

Crucifixion in Ancient Times

In ancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by many peoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’s barbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheaded first, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stake or spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalement originally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut. 21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10). But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, still alive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method of execution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice of impalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’s officials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). In these verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as “gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,” and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period. Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalement as a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion. Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normal methods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil, impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick and easy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion, a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims on a stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousand inhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in 332 BC.

There is no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or a cross as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferred method of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public display of an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole” after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used in the book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39; 13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpse hanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devoured by vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not letting it remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why the Jews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before the Sabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree was especially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curse upon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixion in New Testament Times

Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolished crucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christian sacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

Roman Crucifixion

Crucifixion was a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim was either nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long, agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensive criminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists (Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonly were crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens were exempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor. Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war as victors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies upon crosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strength and intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners stripped their victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in public places where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminals often were flogged severely before crucifixion in a pseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experienced on the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post, and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips with sharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Such floggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrails exposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhausted themselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

After the flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, often weighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shoulders to the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standing seven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and was used repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretched out across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’s arms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollow spot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near the carpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak to support the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was a stronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the arms made the choice of little consequence. Either location was acceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through both wrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary to offer the victim a narcotic cocktail to help ease the pain of crucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

After the victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoisted up and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on the fatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerable amount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatic hypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid vertical shift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would drop to half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequently fainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during this upward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’ “lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus was quite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Next came the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different ways of nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious for twisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing them to the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretched downward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A support block typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight of the body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named “Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north of Jerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side of the heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driven through both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailed to opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddle the cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nail was driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearing free. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “the one hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, the victim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to the hot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road (cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirst was brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements (John 19:28).

Because death could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by a crushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to push their bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their blood circulating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain and usually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death following soon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approached to break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what was written in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will be broken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20). Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear into his side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water, indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was to fulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they have pierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were left on the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. The Jews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucified with him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening (John 19:31).

Physical Death by Crucifixion

Death by crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The most obvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven through the extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim lost a lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified also played a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to a depletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs failed due to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death was suffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on the cross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so the victims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deep breaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower until the lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumes of air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by using their legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victim from pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason for breaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

The ultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massive blood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and blood pressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress. This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of blood and water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, the right side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sac that surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. The soldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing both blood and water to flow out.

The Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

The OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Types of Crosses

A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross could have several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at all but rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. This simple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with the addition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another form of cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, was shaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the upright beam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is also known as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that the apostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. A cross shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in the center.

Crucifixion in Ancient Times

In ancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by many peoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’s barbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheaded first, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stake or spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalement originally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut. 21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10). But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, still alive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method of execution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice of impalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’s officials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). In these verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as “gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,” and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period. Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalement as a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion. Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normal methods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil, impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick and easy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion, a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims on a stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousand inhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in 332 BC.

There is no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or a cross as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferred method of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public display of an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole” after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used in the book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39; 13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpse hanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devoured by vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not letting it remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why the Jews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before the Sabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree was especially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curse upon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixion in New Testament Times

Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolished crucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christian sacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

Roman Crucifixion

Crucifixion was a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim was either nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long, agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensive criminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists (Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonly were crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens were exempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor. Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war as victors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies upon crosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strength and intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners stripped their victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in public places where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminals often were flogged severely before crucifixion in a pseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experienced on the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post, and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips with sharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Such floggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrails exposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhausted themselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

After the flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, often weighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shoulders to the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standing seven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and was used repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretched out across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’s arms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollow spot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near the carpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak to support the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was a stronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the arms made the choice of little consequence. Either location was acceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through both wrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary to offer the victim a narcotic cocktail to help ease the pain of crucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

After the victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoisted up and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on the fatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerable amount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatic hypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid vertical shift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would drop to half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequently fainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during this upward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’ “lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus was quite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Next came the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different ways of nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious for twisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing them to the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretched downward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A support block typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight of the body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named “Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north of Jerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side of the heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driven through both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailed to opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddle the cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nail was driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearing free. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “the one hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, the victim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to the hot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road (cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirst was brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements (John 19:28).

Because death could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by a crushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to push their bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their blood circulating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain and usually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death following soon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approached to break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what was written in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will be broken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20). Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear into his side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water, indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was to fulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they have pierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were left on the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. The Jews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucified with him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening (John 19:31).

Physical Death by Crucifixion

Death by crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The most obvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven through the extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim lost a lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified also played a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to a depletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs failed due to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death was suffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on the cross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so the victims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deep breaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower until the lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumes of air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by using their legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victim from pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason for breaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

The ultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massive blood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and blood pressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress. This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of blood and water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, the right side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sac that surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. The soldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing both blood and water to flow out.

The Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

The OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Types of Crosses

A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross could have several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at all but rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. This simple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with the addition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another form of cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, was shaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the upright beam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is also known as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that the apostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. A cross shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in the center.

Crucifixion in Ancient Times

In ancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by many peoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’s barbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheaded first, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stake or spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalement originally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut. 21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10). But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, still alive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method of execution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice of impalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’s officials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). In these verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as “gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,” and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period. Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalement as a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion. Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normal methods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil, impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick and easy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion, a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims on a stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousand inhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in 332 BC.

There is no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or a cross as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferred method of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public display of an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole” after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used in the book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39; 13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpse hanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devoured by vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not letting it remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why the Jews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before the Sabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree was especially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curse upon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixion in New Testament Times

Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolished crucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christian sacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

Roman Crucifixion

Crucifixion was a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim was either nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long, agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensive criminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists (Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonly were crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens were exempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor. Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war as victors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies upon crosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strength and intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners stripped their victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in public places where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminals often were flogged severely before crucifixion in a pseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experienced on the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post, and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips with sharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Such floggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrails exposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhausted themselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

After the flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, often weighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shoulders to the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standing seven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and was used repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretched out across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’s arms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollow spot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near the carpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak to support the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was a stronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the arms made the choice of little consequence. Either location was acceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through both wrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary to offer the victim a narcotic cocktail to help ease the pain of crucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

After the victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoisted up and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on the fatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerable amount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatic hypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid vertical shift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would drop to half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequently fainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during this upward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’ “lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus was quite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Next came the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different ways of nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious for twisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing them to the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretched downward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A support block typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight of the body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named “Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north of Jerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side of the heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driven through both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailed to opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddle the cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nail was driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearing free. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “the one hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, the victim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to the hot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road (cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirst was brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements (John 19:28).

Because death could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by a crushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to push their bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their blood circulating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain and usually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death following soon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approached to break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what was written in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will be broken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20). Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear into his side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water, indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was to fulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they have pierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were left on the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. The Jews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucified with him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening (John 19:31).

Physical Death by Crucifixion

Death by crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The most obvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven through the extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim lost a lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified also played a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to a depletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs failed due to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death was suffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on the cross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so the victims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deep breaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower until the lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumes of air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by using their legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victim from pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason for breaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

The ultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massive blood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and blood pressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress. This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of blood and water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, the right side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sac that surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. The soldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing both blood and water to flow out.

The Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

The OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is under God’s command. The Hebrew word ruakh sometimes is translated as “wind” but other times can mean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen. 1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is most often used in the NT to denote wind.

Old Testament. Throughout the OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8 declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind in storehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God uses wind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends a wind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark to recede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea during the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail in from the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 11:31).

Wind can also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plague upon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land; afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea (Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from the desert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse, killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In the book of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’s ship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint and desire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject of wind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6; Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).

While a single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6), many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of the heavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the south wind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing a garden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west wind specifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the east wind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with military terms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatter ships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) or shrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuing the east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, the four winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bring life (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan. 7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).

God rides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2 Sam. 22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 the winds are called God’s “messengers.” This imagery is strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite god Baal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind (Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent upon wind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh in the whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successful contest against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:11–12).

The wisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besides its power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind is the inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov. 11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under the sun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Empty talk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blow away chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as a metaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).

New Testament. In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus by emphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27). Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8 for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit. Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John the Baptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind. It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally, a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a sound like a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills all those in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

When the Israelites grumbled in the wilderness, God sent “venomous [lit., “burning”; Heb. serapim] snakes” that bit the people (Num. 21:4–9; cf. KJV: “fiery serpents”). In response to Moses’ prayer on their behalf, God commanded Moses to make a sarap and put it on a pole; the people who looked at it would live. Moses made a bronze serpent. Because the people worshiped the bronze serpent, Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kings 18:4). Jesus likened the bronze serpent lifted up in the wilderness to the Son of Man being lifted up (John 3:14). From a human perspective, both a serpent and a crucified messiah were unlikely objects of faith.

“Burning snake” appears in Deut. 8:15 (NIV: “venomous snakes”); the burning aspect may refer to the effects of the venom. Isaiah employed the image of a “flying” venomous snake in referring to Ahaz’s successor (Isa. 14:29 KJV; NIV: “darting”). Serapim appeared in Isaiah’s vision of the supernatural winged creatures flying above the throne of God; one brought a burning coal to touch Isaiah’s lips (Isa. 6:2–6). See also Seraphim.

First John is a letter written to reassure Christians of the security of their salvation in Christ. The letter contrasts the truth of the original gospel taught by the author with the heretical doctrines of traveling teachers who sought to instill doubt and fear in the churches. The incarnation takes center stage as the climactic confession of Christianity (1 John 4:2–3). Christian love flows out of God’s ultimate example of love in the atoning death of Christ.

Genre

First John is commonly referred to as a letter, but it bears none of the traditional marks of a Greco-Roman letter. The author does not introduce himself, the recipients are not named, there is no opening greeting or wish for health, and there are no closing salutations. Some have suggested that 1 John is a universal tract, but the content is too specific and polemical. First John is probably a circular letter intended for general distribution among the churches associated with the author.

Main Themes

First John repeats many of the same themes as the Gospel of John. The historical reality of the incarnation of Christ is a central theme in 1 John (1:1–3). The incarnation is rooted in history and cannot be divorced from that foundational fact. Christ’s “atoning sacrifice” is another foundational fact of Christian belief; however, it is not simply that Christ died a sacrificial death, but that he did so “for our sins” (2:2; 4:10). The author explains the meaning of the atonement to help build the salvation confidence of the struggling Christians. In a number of places the author places special stress on the forgiveness of sins that comes through Jesus’ blood. His death “purifies us from all sin” (1:7). He came to take away sin and to destroy the work of the devil (3:5, 8).

Love is another resounding theme. Christians are to love one another in concrete ways, reflecting the sacrificial love of Christ (2:16–18). Love is rooted in God and ultimately demonstrated at the cross (4:9). We will never find what love means if we start from the human end. We must start from the cross, where we see the love of God (4:10). The author reminds his readers that they have the Holy Spirit and have no need for further instruction by the false teachers (2:20–21, 26–27). The Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth, who bears witness that Jesus is Christ in the flesh (4:2, 6). Competing spirits should be tested and rejected as “antichrist” if they fail to confess Christ (4:3).

First John is full of family imagery. The author repeatedly addresses his readers as “children,” “brothers,” and “beloved.” Being “born of God” is the hallmark of those who are “children of God” (2:23; 3:1–3, 9–10). Children of God love one another and do what is right (3:10–11). Eternal life is a present possession that believers can be assured of (5:13). Although the false teachers sow seeds of doubt, the author seeks to uproot them. Salvation is not for those who are spiritually enlightened but for all whose faith is in the blood of Christ.

Literary Features

One of the author’s favorite literary features is the repetition of key words. The word “love” appears over fifty times in 1 John. Love is the bedrock of the Christian faith. The verb “to know” appears approximately forty times in 1 John. The author reassures his readers of their salvation by repeating what they already “know.” They “know” God and should not fear the false teachers’ so-called knowledge. The verb “to remain” appears twenty-four times. God, God’s word, Christ, truth, life, love, and the Holy Spirit all remain in believers. They, in turn, should remain in God, Christ, and the light. In contrast, unbelievers remain in death (3:14). First John also has strong dualistic contrasts: light/dark, love/hate, truth/falsehood (1–2; 4:6). The dualism of 1 John is similar to that found in the DSS, but its Christian character gives it a unique christocentric emphasis.

Authorship

First John and the Gospel of John share common vocabulary, writing style, and many interlocking themes that point to a common author. The opening verses of 1 John show a close affinity with the beginning of the Gospel (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1). Also, the purpose statements of both the Gospel and 1 John concern faith in Christ and receiving eternal life (John 20:31; 1 John 5:13). Some scholars believe the apostle John is the author, but this is impossible to prove from the text itself, since the author never mentions his name. Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian attributed 1 John to the apostle. An alternative theory is that the three letters were written by another John, known as John “the elder” (2 John 1; 3 John 1). The church historian Eusebius thought that this elder John rather than the apostle John was the author of the Johannine Letters. John the elder is thought to have lived in Ephesus at about the same time as John the apostle. Yet there is no indisputable proof that this person existed or that he wrote anything to churches in the area. Nevertheless, there is nothing in 1 John that hinges on the exact identity of the author. He seems to be well advanced in years and regards the church members as his “children” (2:1, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21) and “friends” (3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11). He has a close relationship with them and shows a genuine pastoral concern for their well-being. He claims to be an eyewitness of Jesus, the Word of life (1:1–3).

Audience, Life Setting, and Date

Audience and date. The audience is a group of churches in fellowship with the author’s church. This group of churches is often referred to as the Johannine Community, a community represented by the Johannine literature of the NT (Gospel of John, 1–3 John, Revelation). Whether this community functioned formally as such is unclear, but there seems to be a close-knit network of churches associated with the author. Tradition places these churches in and around Ephesus at the end of the first century. Since John’s Gospel was written sometime in the years AD 85–95, 1 John was written probably not long afterward to churches in and around Ephesus.

Life setting. The exact life setting behind 1 John is uncertain, but the churches apparently were endangered by itinerant false teachers intent on distorting the gospel preached by the author. Their teachings may have stemmed from a misinterpretation of John’s Gospel, but this is difficult to prove. They were in fellowship with the author at one time but broke away and charted their own deceptive direction (1 John 2:18–19, 26). The audience had already heard the message of the gospel, including its command to love, and this had already impacted their lives (2:8). They already knew the truth of the gospel (2:21), but the false teachers began to sow seeds of doubt. This explains the purpose statement of 1 John: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). The author’s purpose was not to correct the heretics, for the letter was not written to them, but to show his readers that the false teachers’ claims were indeed false.

The identity of the false teachers is unknown, but their teachings reflected seeds of gnosticism and docetism and may have included some Jewish influences. The more-advanced forms of gnosticism and docetism that threatened the church in the second century were not yet fully developed by the time of John, but similar ideas were already beginning to infiltrate the church. Gnostics taught a radical division between flesh and spirit. Flesh and matter were bad, but spirit was good. Because of this false premise, they may have misinterpreted Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel: “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6). A gnostic or a docetic who was “born from above” (see John 3:3 NIV mg.) was resurrected and became “otherworldly” and truly “spiritual.” Flesh was discarded as worthless and evil. Although this was only one aspect of the false teaching, it was enough to threaten the very core of the gospel of Christ in the flesh as well as a bodily resurrection. For the false teachers, Jesus only seemed to have a genuine body of flesh and to suffer and die (docetism), since flesh was evil by nature (gnosticism). This notion threatened the very heart of the Christian gospel.

Among the debated issues were the identity of Christ, the significance of his atoning death, the nature of salvation, and the shape of Christian discipleship. The heretics claimed to be without sin (1 John 1:8–2:2), continued to sin (3:6, 8, 10), disobeyed God’s commands (1:6–7; 2:4–6; 5:2–3), did not love their brothers and sisters in Christ yet claimed to love God (2:7–11; 3:10–18, 23; 4:7–11, 20–21), and loved the world (2:15–17; 4:4–6; 5:19). They erred regarding the nature and work of Christ. They denied that Jesus was the Christ and, by doing so, denied God as well (2:22; 5:1). By denying Jesus, they did not remain in God (4:15; 5:5, 10, 13). They rejected the historical fact that Christ came in the flesh (4:3). They also rejected the atonement of Christ (2:2; 3:5; 4:10; 5:6). Those who threatened the church may have valued the heavenly and spiritual realm and despised physical matter in such a way that it led them to place all their emphasis on the heavenly Christ rather than the human Jesus, and on their own “spiritual” status as the children of God rather than their day-to-day actions. They were committed to a fundamentally different understanding of the Christian faith.

The heretics were not content to keep their ideas to themselves, so they circulated among the churches in order to spread their beliefs. They sought to win people over to their understanding of things (2:26; 4:1–3). This led to confusion among the believers who remained faithful to the gospel as it was proclaimed at the beginning, the gospel that had come from eyewitnesses such as the author. As a result, these Christians doubted their salvation, doubted that they really knew God and Christ, and doubted that they were experiencing eternal life. Clearly, the author viewed the teachings and practices of the false teachers as a threat to the proper understanding of truth and to the well-being of his readers.

Outline

I. Prologue: The Incarnate Word of Life (1:1–4)

II. Walking in the Light (1:5–2:2)

III. Keeping His Commands (2:3–11)

IV. Do Not Love the World (2:12–17)

V. A Warning against Antichrists (2:18–27)

VI. The Hope of God’s Children (2:28–3:3)

VII. Born of God (3:4–10)

VIII. Love One Another (3:11–18)

IX. Assurance and Obedience (3:19–24)

X. The Spirits of Truth and Falsehood (4:1–6)

XI. The Priority of God’s Love (4:7–12)

XII. Christian Love (4:13–5:4)

XIII. The True Faith Confirmed (5:5–12)

XIV. Concluding Remarks (5:13–21)

Traditionally appearing after Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the NT canon, the Gospel of John is also referred to as the Fourth Gospel. Because of its many unique features, John is often discussed in distinction from the other three Gospels, which are grouped together as the Synoptic Gospels.

Authorship

Technically, the Gospel of John is anonymous. The author, however, identifies himself with the Beloved Disciple (21:24). In light of the nearly unanimous testimony of the early church that the Fourth Gospel was penned by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, and that no formidable argument has been set forth against this position, the majority of conservative scholars agree that the Beloved Disciple is John the apostle.

Evidence for apostolic authorship is multifaceted. First, the external evidence weighs heavily in favor of the traditional view that John the apostle penned this Gospel. There is some evidence that title pages with an accompanying ascription identifying the author date back very close to the time of the origin of the Gospels themselves. Such ascriptions may have been necessitated as a means of distinguishing the Gospels from one another. With regard to the Fourth Gospel, the earliest manuscripts uniformly ascribe it to the apostle John.

The evidence from the early church fathers also supports the traditional viewpoint. Ignatius appears to have been familiar with the language of the Fourth Gospel. Also, the Shepherd of Hermas alludes to it. Justin appears to be the first orthodox writer to quote John (1 Apol. 61.4–5, quoting from John 3:3–5). Irenaeus is the first to overtly assert Johannine authorship: “John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was resident at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1). This position finds further support in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200). The Muratorian Canon (AD 180–200) tells us that John was urged by his disciples, and that Andrew had a dream that John should write. Eusebius’s silence on the questions of the authenticity, authorship, and canonicity of John speaks loudly, since it was his objective to address the doubtful cases. In all, there is unquestioned acceptance by the end of the second century that the Fourth Gospel was written by John the apostle.

Second, the internal evidence corresponds with the identification of John the son of Zebedee as the author in that he appears to meet all the requirements for authorship. John was one of the Twelve and, along with Peter and James, a member of the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples. This close association with Peter makes John the best candidate for the Beloved Disciple. Also, the call narrative of 1:35–51, when compared with Mark 1:16–20, supports the identification of the unnamed disciple with John. Several personal allusions in the Fourth Gospel are best accounted for if the author is John the apostle. For example, in 1:14; 19:35 the author suggests that he has personally witnessed Jesus. The author provides details that suggest this Gospel was written by an eyewitness, and some of these details serve no purpose except to affirm that an eyewitness saw or experienced them. These include a proclivity for specifying the time or day of an event (1:19–28, 29, 35, 39, 43; 2:1; 4:6, 52; 18:28; 19:14; 20:19); the number of water jars (six) at Cana (2:6); the distance (twenty-five or thirty stadia) that the disciples rowed (6:19); the number of fish (153) caught (21:11); and the distance of the boat from land at the postresurrection appearance of Jesus (21:8, 11).

Furthermore, the author of the Fourth Gospel is aware of Jewish customs and history as well as the geography of first-century Palestine. This too accords with our knowledge of John the apostle. For example, he is aware of customs regarding cleansing (2:6), laws concerning the Sabbath (5:10), and the Feast of Tabernacles (7:37). The writer of the Fourth Gospel is also familiar with history (the number of years spent rebuilding the temple [2:20]), Jewish politics (the attitude toward Samaritans [4:9]), Jewish authorities (Annas and Caiaphas [18:13]), and the geography of Palestine (the pool at Bethesda with five porticoes [5:2], the Pool of Siloam [9:7], Sychar [4:5], the two Bethanys [1:28; 11:1, 18; 12:1], Ephraim [11:54]).

The question remains as to why the apostle John would have written anonymously and used such a cryptic means of identifying himself as “the beloved disciple” (21:20; NIV: “the disciple whom Jesus loved”). It is conceivable that John’s readers knew his name, and that in keeping with the Semitic custom of anonymity, John used this alternative designation. Why, though, in an effort to humbly remain anonymous, would someone choose a designation that seemingly connotes superiority?

In response, some have suggested that John may have used the title with a sense of wonder about how Jesus loved him. The stress would then be one of amazement: John, instead of mentioning his own name, draws attention to what he owes Jesus. This title is also combined with other, more modest titles: “another disciple” (18:15); “the other disciple” (20:2); “the man who saw it” (19:35). Finally, others have noted that the designation “the beloved disciple” may simply have been a title by which John was known throughout the churches of Asia.

Furthermore, if the apostle John is not the author of the Fourth Gospel, then we must account for his absence from the narrative. The failure to mention James and John (aside from the somewhat passing reference to the “sons of Zebedee” [21:2]) is striking. According to the Synoptic Gospels, these brothers are two of the most prominent disciples in the ministry of Jesus. If John’s readers were familiar with James and John and their general role in the life of Jesus, then by not naming himself, John could keep his own role subordinate in the narrative. John, as an eyewitness, needed to mention himself, for doing so would help to establish the historical credibility of this Gospel. This designation allowed him to write a biography of Christ and not mention himself by name.

Time and Place of Writing

Though the conclusion is ultimately uncertain, it is widely believed that John penned the Fourth Gospel from Ephesus somewhat late in the first century (c. AD 85–95). It appears from 21:19, 23 that a measure of time has gone by, and that Peter has already died. It has been argued that the Gospel of John was written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 (on the basis of references suggesting that the temple is still standing [cf. 5:2]), but this argument from silence does not necessarily establish the point that it attempts to prove. Supporting a date late in the first century is the external evidence. The early church fathers claimed that John was written last, at the urging of his disciples, and that he wrote from Ephesus.

The suggestion that John was written sometime well into the second century has been rejected by nearly all scholars. The discovery of a very early manuscript, P52 (dated around AD 125), confirms that the Fourth Gospel was written and circulating early in the second century. Copies of the Bodmer Papyri P66 and P75 further establish that the Gospel of John was circulating in Egypt as early as AD 140.

Outline

I. Prologue (1:1–18)

II. Preparation for Jesus’ Ministry (1:19–51)

III. Jesus’ Public Ministry: Signs and Teaching (2:1–12:50)

IV. The Last Supper and Farewell Discourse (13:1–17:26)

V. The Passion and Resurrection Narratives (18:1–21:25)

Purpose and Message

The Gospel of John states its purpose in 20:31: “But these [signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” The Greek text of this verse is relatively ambiguous (something that was noticed from a very early date and has resulted in some discrepancy among the earliest manuscripts). It raises the question of whether John wrote so that his readers might come to believe or that they should continue in their belief. A number of leading scholars have concluded that John was intentionally ambiguous and that he wrote with both purposes in mind.

The Gospel of John clearly focuses on the person, work, and identity of Jesus Christ. John intends to clarify and affirm exactly who the Messiah/Christ/Son of God really was and why he came. For John, the answer is evident: Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of God, and he came to be crucified.

The thesis statement of the Fourth Gospel appears at the close of the opening prologue: “the one and only Son, who is himself God” has “made him [the Father] known” (1:18). John demonstrates this by affirming that what God is, the Word is (1:1); what the Father does, the Son does (5:19); the Son and the Father are one (10:30); the Son speaks what the Father has told him (8:28; 12:49; 14:10); and the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son (14:10–11). The climactic statement, then, is Jesus’ proclamation: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9).

Several proposals have set forth various secondary intentions for the Gospel of John. Many of these have some measure of legitimacy, though it is difficult to establish any of them as forthright in the mind of John. For example, it has been suggested that the Fourth Gospel was written to combat a growing form of gnosticism. Although this Gospel has traces of evidence that support this contention, and there is even some external evidence in its favor, it is difficult to establish that this was an explicit intention of John. Gnosticism as a developed system did not arise until the second century. Others have argued that this Gospel was written as an anti-Jewish polemic. A close reading, however, suggests that this was not one of John’s purposes. Perhaps the most plausible secondary proposition is that John’s Gospel was written to complement the Synoptic Gospels.

John and the Synoptics

The relationship between John and the Synoptics is essential for our understanding of the Fourth Gospel. That John is independent from the Synoptics is evident in that the Fourth Gospel has a detailed knowledge of events beyond those recorded in the Synoptics. John knows of lengthy discourses after miracles (e.g., 6:26–58), a wedding in Cana (2:1–11), conversations with Nicodemus (3:1–21) and a Samaritan woman (4:7–37), repeated confrontations with the Jews (e.g., 8:12–59), the raising of Lazarus from death (11:1–44), and more. Nothing in chapters 3–5 is paralleled in the Synoptics; and of the material in chapters 1–5, only the ministry of John the Baptist and the cleansing of the temple are found in the Synoptics. Compared to the Synoptics, John has a distinct vocabulary (e.g., truth, witness, abide, love, believe, light, life).

Also in contrast to the Synoptics, John focuses on Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem, has Jesus beginning his ministry before the arrest of John the Baptist (3:22–24 [cf. Mark 1:14]), shows Jesus’ ministry being of longer duration than in the Synoptics, records no parables of Jesus and no transfiguration, and scarcely mentions the kingdom of God (3:3, 5; 18:36). Furthermore, John’s theology and explicit identification of Jesus with God are unique among the Gospels.

Despite the differences, however, the Gospel of John reflects significant parallels with the Synoptic accounts. John is aware of the Synoptic traditions regarding the Spirit’s anointing (1:32–33), John the Baptist (1:19–34; 3:22–36), the feeding of the five thousand (6:1–13), and Jesus’ walking on water (6:15–21). Furthermore, the Fourth Gospel seemingly intends to explain features that are obscure in the Synoptics. For example, why did the disciples follow Jesus when he came to them and said, “Follow me”? John explains that many of them were disciples of John the Baptist, and that they had met Jesus earlier (1:19–51). That Jesus had an extensive ministry in Judea explains why the Jerusalem authorities were so angry with Jesus and were plotting to kill him when he came into Jerusalem for the Passover. The central charge that Jesus taught against the temple (cf. Mark 14:58; 15:29) is also explained by John.

In all, it appears that John and his readers were aware of the Synoptics. John may even have been written to complement them and to explain aspects of the Synoptic accounts that were obscure. Thus, the parenthetical insertions in 3:24 and 11:2 may have been intended for readers who were familiar with the Gospel of Mark. Most significantly, John complements the Synoptics by presenting the significance of the person of Jesus beyond what is found in the Synoptics.

Jesus in the Gospel of John

The most significant feature of John is its high Christology. John intends to specify precisely the person and identity of Christ. The equating of Jesus with God undergirds the entire Fourth Gospel. In no other Gospel is Jesus so clearly identified as God. The Gospel begins with the affirmation that the Word was in the beginning with God, and “the Word was God” (1:1). Later, Thomas confesses Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

John, however, identifies Jesus with a wide variety of titles and designations. He is the Word (1:1, 14), the one and only God (1:18), the one and only Son (3:16, 18), the Son of God (1:34, 49; 11:27; 20:31), the Son of Man (3:13–14; 5:19–27), the teacher from God (3:2), the prophet (4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17), the Messiah (1:41; 4:29; 11:27; 20:31), the King of Israel (1:49; 6:15; 12:13), the King of the Jews (19:19), the Holy One of God (6:69), the Lamb of God (1:29, 36), the coming one (11:27; 12:13), the sent one of God (3:16–17, 34; 5:30; 7:16–18; 10:36), the I Am (see below), Paraclete (14:16), rabbi (20:16), Lord (6:68; 20:18; 21:7), and Lord and God (20:28).

Perhaps the most significant title applied to Jesus is the identification of him with the divine name for God: “I Am” (Gk. egō eimi [cf. Exod. 3:14]). John employs this designation for Jesus to buttress his claims that he can work, speak, and act in the Father’s role. On seven occasions, the “I am” is followed by a predicate: bread of life (6:35); light of the world (8:12); gate (10:9); good shepherd (10:11, 14); resurrection and the life (11:25); the way, the truth, and the life (14:6); true vine (15:1, 5).

John also employs the phrase “I am” in an absolute construction (i.e., without a predicate) in parallel to use in the LXX as a title for God. On some of these occasions, John uses the absolute construction as a common means of identification (18:5–8). Most intriguing, however, is John’s employment of this designation in the extended dialogue with the Jewish authorities (8:24, 28, 58). In 8:24, 28 the sense seems incomplete, and the form is more a title. This becomes explicit only when compared with the final and most significant use of this title in 8:58. On this occasion, Jesus’ intent is not missed, and the Jews respond with the desire to stone him for blasphemy (8:59).

The Old Testament in the Gospel of John

The Gospel of John has only fourteen direct references to the OT, fewer than any of the Synoptics. Nonetheless, one of the key features of John’s portrait of Jesus is Jesus’ fulfillment of the OT not just as the Messiah but also in terms of the institutions, symbols, and festivals of Judaism. In Jesus “the old has gone, the new is here” (2 Cor. 5:17). Thus, in John’s Gospel the old purifications are replaced with the new wine (2:1–11), the old temple with the new temple (2:12–25), the old birth with the new birth (3:1–21), the old water with the living water (4:7–15), and worship in Jerusalem and Gerizim with worship “in the Spirit and in truth” (4:20–24). Often Jesus’ activities are dated in relation to a feast. Throughout chapters 5–10, John affirms that Jesus has fulfilled and replaced the Jewish festivals—Sabbath: related to work (5:1–47); Feast of Passover: bread (6:1–71); Feast of Tabernacles: water and light (7:1–9:41); Feast of Dedication: temple (10:22–39).

Also, John builds upon a typological emphasis of Jesus. He is the true temple (2:21), the antitype of the bronze serpent (3:14), the true manna (6:32–35), the true water-giving rock (7:37), and the new Torah (13:34). Thus, the entire Gospel is framed around Jesus’ visits to Jerusalem, where John presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s hope and central to the life of the nation. Furthermore, this Gospel is replete with references to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Despite the relative lack of OT citations, the message of the OT is interwoven into the substructure of the Fourth Gospel.

Symbols and the Gospel of John

Closely related to understanding the Gospel of John and the OT is the manner in which John utilizes symbols to convey his message. For example, water often signifies life, cleansing, refreshment, renewal, the newness that Jesus ushers in, and ultimately the life-giving Spirit. Thus, Nicodemus must be reborn in water and the Spirit (3:5). Jesus turns water into wine (2:8) and promises living water to the woman at the well (4:10).

John also sees in Jesus’ miracles a greater significance than appears from the physical phenomena. Thus, he uses the designation “signs” (see, e.g., 2:11) to reference the miracles of Jesus. By means of this designation, John focuses on the significance of the miracle and not merely the power of Jesus. John informs us that the signs of Jesus are christological; they signify who he is, not merely what he does. For example, from Jesus’ multiplying of the bread we learn that he is the giver of eternal life and the source of our sustenance (6:26–27).

Irony and Misunderstanding in John

Another key to understanding the Gospel of John is found in its use of irony and misunderstanding. Irony is a literary technique evidenced in John in instances in which opponents of Jesus make statements about him that are derogatory, sarcastic, and so forth and yet are more true or meaningful than they suppose. John presents such statements but leaves them unanswered, supposing that his audience will see the deeper truth. For example, many of the Jews missed the very Messiah they were looking for (1:11, 45; 5:39–40); they claim to know where Jesus is from (7:27), and yet they refuse to accept the truth that he is from God (7:28). The most famous use of irony appears in Pilate’s famed “Here is the man!” (19:5).

Misunderstandings are occasions when Jesus makes a remark that is ambiguous or metaphorical and his partner in conversation responds by taking the remark literally, thus showing that the spiritual meaning has eluded that person. John then explains to his readers the true meaning. John uses this technique to bring his readers to a greater knowledge of who Jesus is: God in flesh. Examples of misunderstandings are found in 2:19–21; 3:3–5; 4:10–15, 31–34; 6:32–35, 51–53; 7:33–36; 8:21–22, 31–35, 56–58; 11:11–15, 23–25; 12:32–34; 13:36–38; 14:4–6, 7–9; 16:16–19.

Anti-Semitism in John?

The contention that John displays an anti-Semitic agenda in which the burden for the crucifixion of Jesus is placed on the Jewish people results from a misreading of the Fourth Gospel. A thorough reading of John confirms that the designation “Jews” often reflects the generic term “Israelites.” The term “Jew” is used in a neutral sense in 4:22 (salvation is from the Jews); 8:31; 11:45; 12:11 (many Jews believed); and 2:13; 5:1; 6:4 (feast of the Jews). When the designation “Jew” appears in a negative sense in John, it refers particularly to the Jewish leaders and authorities (7:13; 9:22; 19:38; 20:19). Consequently, John’s use of the term is not based on an inherent degradation of the people, but instead reflects the historical reality of Jesus’ confrontation with Jewish authorities.

That John does not place all the blame on the Jews in an effort to exonerate the Romans is also evident from the fact that Pilate is portrayed as one who disregards justice. He has an innocent man beaten and crucified (“I find no basis for a charge against him” [19:6]). John does not record this cry from the Jewish people: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25 ESV, NRSV). Consequently, the charge of anti-Semitism in the Gospel of John is unfounded.

The place where the lost are assigned by God to eternal punishment of both body and soul (Matt. 10:28). This agony of eternal torment in hell is the greatest of all possible tragedies.

At times, there is confusion about this topic, since the English word “hell” is used in different ways in our English Bibles. Sometimes it is used to translate the Hebrew word she’ol or the Greek word hadēs, which refer generally to the place of the departed dead. Other times it is used more properly to translate the Aramaic-derived Greek word geenna, which refers to the place of the eternal punishment of the wicked following the final judgment. This second usage will be the focus of this present study.

This topic of the afterlife unfolded only gradually in Scripture. “Gehenna” originally referred to the Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, the location of the notorious sacrificial offerings of children by fire to the god Molek by Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:6). Later, the meaning of this term was extended to the place of fiery punishment in general. Still later, the geographic location of this place of punishment was shifted to under the earth, but the idea of fiery torment continued. By NT times, the Pharisees clearly believed in the punishment of the wicked in the afterlife.

It is primarily in the teachings of Jesus that the reality of a place of eternal punishment comes into clear focus. Jesus describes hell as involving unquenchable fire (Matt. 18:8–9; Mark 9:42–43, 48), a place where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48). Jesus also pictures the extreme anguish of those who suffer the ultimate punishment of being “thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12).

The idea of a severe eternal punishment for the lost is also taught by the apostles. At the return of Christ, those living outside a proper relationship with God will experience sudden destruction (1 Thess. 5:3) when the angels will come “in blazing fire” and “punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess. 1:6–9). The author of Hebrews speaks of the “fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (Heb. 10:27). Revelation describes how “the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever” (Rev. 14:11), and how the ungodly will be cast into “the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (21:8).

One significant controversy related to this topic is annihilation or conditional immortality (taught by, e.g., Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses), where the lost cease to exist, either immediately following death or after a limited period of punishment. Appeals for this view are found in the language applied to the wicked such as “death” (Rom. 6:23; James 5:20), “destruction” (Matt. 7:13; 10:28), and “perishing” (John 3:16). Yet other Scriptures speak of the place of punishment as being where “the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched” (Isa. 66:24), and where “God’s wrath remains on them [present tense]” (John 3:36), and as being “everlasting,” “eternal,” or “for ever” (Isa. 33:14; Matt. 18:8; 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 20:10). Historic orthodoxy has generally maintained that the bliss of the redeemed and the punishment of the unsaved will continue for all eternity.

Another controversy involves universalism, the belief that ultimately all will be saved following death, possibly after a period of punishment. Yet this view, as attractive as it might be to human nature, falls short of the teachings of Scripture about “the coming wrath” for the ungodly (Matt. 3:7). The Roman Catholic belief in purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead represent other denials of the standard position that one’s eternal destiny is inevitably fixed at the time of death.

Another question involves how literally or figuratively to take the language of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48). Will the fire be the same as the fire that we know on earth? And will there be literal worms? It is best to conclude simply that such punishment will be the worst that we can possibly imagine. Jesus clearly and emphatically warns about the dangers of hell as the greatest of all tragedies, characterized by “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (an expression found seven times in the Gospels).

There is also the question of whether there will be degrees of punishment in hell. In Mark 12:40 Jesus implies that there will be degrees of punishment, telling of hypocrites who will receive greater condemnation, and in Luke 12:47–48 speaking of some who will “be beaten with many blows,” whereas others who have less knowledge of their master’s will will “be beaten with few blows.” The underlying principle both in the degrees of reward in glory and in the degrees of punishment in hell is this: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48).

Writings associated with the Greco-Egyptian deity Hermes Trismegistos, who was a combination of Hermes (the Greek god of eloquence and science) and Thot, an Egyptian moon god and scribe of the gods, whose title, meaning “the thrice greatest,” was added to the name. The Corpus hermeticum consists of seventeen philosophical and theological tractates, mostly ascribed to the god himself, who often is quoted instructing his son. These were probably first written in Greek from the second to fifth centuries AD. The earliest known manuscript contains tractates 1–14 and is probably from the eleventh century AD. Numerous references to and citations of lost Hermetic works are found in the church fathers, and other important finds come from Nag Hammadi. The Corpus hermeticum was once thought to predate Plato but now is seen as a later development from Platonic, Stoic, Neo-Pythagorean, and some Jewish ideas. The literature is fairly abstract overall, and questions remain as to whether the movement existed primarily as a school of thought or also included its own cultic community. Although no literary dependency is evident, the texts are relevant for NT studies because they illuminate the cultural milieu surrounding early church history and the composition of the NT.

The literature has affinities with Pauline and Johannine literature as well as with gnostic works. Regarding shared religious expression with the NT, God is called “light and life” (Corp. herm. 1.12; 13.18–19; cf. John 1:4, 9), and the idea of rebirth (palingenesia) appears (Corp. herm. 13; cf. John 3:3; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23), as do the ideas of individual salvation and baptism. But death does not come because of sin (Corp. herm. 1.20; cf. Rom. 5:12), and the idea of incarnation is rejected (Corp. herm. 4.9). Similarities with cosmological ideas found in gnostic literature also appear: dualism between spirit and matter, creation of the material world as a tragic mistake, the physical body as evil, and salvation from the empirical world via knowledge (gnōsis).

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

Old Testament

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

The practice of claiming standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform. Hypocrisy is attributed to those whose actions and words differ from the intention of their heart (Matt. 22:18; 23:28). It is a form of lying (1 Tim. 4:2; 1 Pet. 2:1) and can become a form of self-delusion (Matt. 7:5; 23:16–26; Luke 12:56; 13:15).

The OT expresses the sense with phrases like “double heart” and “flattering lips” (Ps. 12:2 KJV). Jeremiah describes those who have God “always on their lips but far from their hearts” (Jer. 12:2).

The NT word hypokrinomai has its origin in the theater, referring to a play actor (Luke 20:20). All parts, including female characters, were played by a few men, who signaled character transitions by switching masks. Jesus calls his opponents “hypocrites” (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Mark 7:6; Luke 12:56; 13:15; cf. Ps. 26:4). Archaeologists have found a theater in Sepphoris, a large and partly Hellenized city within five miles of Jesus’ hometown, Nazareth, but the theater may have been built after his ministry. Even if Jesus did not personally attend the local theater, the imagery would have long been a part of his social world.

Jesus criticizes the scribes and Pharisees because “they do not practice what they preach” (Matt. 23:3; cf. Mark 7:6). What they practice is for display (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). Jesus describes the attempt of his opponents to catch him with crafty questions as hypocrisy (Matt. 22:18; Mark 12:15). Jesus is not necessarily calling all Pharisees hypocrites, and certainly not all Jews, but only those who are impeding his ministry. Paul, who was raised a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5), viewed himself not as a hypocrite but as ignorant (1 Tim. 1:13). Jesus criticizes Nicodemus not for hypocrisy but for ignorance about the deeper meaning of Scripture (John 3:1–15). The rabbis, who are descendants of the Pharisees, relate a tradition of concern about hypocrisy within the ranks of the group (e.g., b. Sotah 22b).

Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy because he was willing to eat with non-Jewish Christians in Antioch but then pulled away when a more culturally conservative group arrived from James in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:13). Peter knew the truth but, from Paul’s view, did not act consistently. In this case, the inconsistency would have created a precedent that Paul could not tolerate. The opposite of hypocrisy is love from a transparently pure heart and a willingness to admit fault (Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6; 1 Pet. 1:22).

At creation, God made human beings to depend on him to reveal his purposes, so that their response to life would always involve trust in, and loving obedience to, his counsel. The entrance of sin created a barrier between people and God. Fallen humanity, in its autonomy, seeks to understand the world apart from knowledge of God (1 Cor. 2:14).

In Scripture, ignorance frequently refers to one’s inability to understand who God is or one’s true identity and purpose (Eph. 4:18). In ignorance, humanity disregards God’s revelation (Rom. 1:22–25). The darkened, idolatrous heart is the source of human blindness (Jer. 17:9; Ezek. 14:2–3). Satan holds people captive in blindness (2 Cor. 4:4). God revealed himself through prophetic messengers, but throughout the OT, God’s people disregarded their message. Although God raised up judges to lead his people, they repeatedly reverted to idolatry: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judg. 21:25).

Jesus is the true light, which gives light to every person (John 1:9). Yet people loved darkness and would not come into the light for fear that their deeds would be exposed (John 3:20). However, through the Word, the Spirit can transform the hearts of people such as Paul, who formerly opposed Christ and his church in ignorance and unbelief (1 Tim. 1:13).

Ignorance, however, does not always entail sin. Our finitude implies that our knowledge will always be limited. God has appointed teachers to facilitate our growth in understanding (Eph. 4:11–12).

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

During the time of Jesus and in the couple of centuries prior, Judaism was not a monolithic entity but was comprised of different groups with varying religious concerns and political interests. This multifaceted nature of Judaism has caused scholars to question whether it would be better to speak of Judaisms rather than Judaism. Was Judaism cut from a whole cloth, or was it a box of fabric scraps? Perhaps it is best to speak of Judaism as a single entity, but one comprised of various factions with diverse beliefs and interests. This conclusion is justified because the diverse sentiments and interests were responses to the same religious and political issues, such as Torah, the temple, and foreign occupiers.

Five of the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The first three seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of the Hasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, and the other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by the Romans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.

Pharisees

According to Josephus. The best source of information on the Pharisees, apart from the Gospels themselves, is the Jewish historian Josephus, who discusses the beliefs of various Jewish factions. In consideration of his Roman audience, he depicts these groups as Jewish philosophical schools. In his Antiquities, Josephus indicates a rough outline of the beliefs of the Pharisees and their political position in relation to the Sadducees and the general populace.

Josephus gives the following points in summation of the Pharisees’ beliefs. (1) The Pharisees believed some things are the result of fate, whereas other things are the result of human choice. (2) The Pharisees believed that the soul survives death in a place of either reward or punishment, and in the resurrection of the body. (3) Besides believing in the authority of Scripture, the Pharisees also had an authoritative body of oral tradition.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees had a difficult relationship, due not only to different religious beliefs but also to conflicting political aspirations. Josephus suggests that Jewish leaders gave patronage to one group or the other, or suppressed one group or the other, sometimes violently. In regard to the general populace, the Pharisees had a much better relationship with them than did the Sadducees, to the point that when Sadducees were magistrates, they had to rule according to the beliefs of the Pharisees or else the people would not listen to them.

In the New Testament. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups that opposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposed Jesus on issues related to their received tradition, which they considered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues were ceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. All three Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesus concerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow the tradition of the elders by eating with “unclean,” that is, “unwashed,” hands (Matt. 15:1–2; Mark 7:1–5; Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees confronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11) and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).

In response to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of the elders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of human need that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 12:7).

Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercy toward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This is especially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on the fine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7; 23:23).

In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted as adversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authorities in plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). One passage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). One Pharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesus before his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’ body for burial after his death (19:39).

The Pharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time to time, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke 20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetic toward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in regard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in a confrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, some early Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

Relationship with rabbinic Judaism. An issue concerning the Pharisees is their relationship with later rabbinic Judaism. There are basically two viewpoints on this matter, and both involve the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. One position maintains that when the dust settled from the destruction of the temple, only the Pharisees remained standing, and rabbinic Judaism is their heir. Another view holds that after AD 70 sectarian Judaism disappeared, and rabbinic Judaism emerged from a coalescence of various Jewish groups. Although one cannot be certain, it seems that the former view may be closer to the truth, since in the Mishnah, Sadducean legal opinion is contrasted with Pharisaic, and the Pharisaic is invariably considered correct.

Sadducees

The Sadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood. “Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” a descendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Some members of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok” as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, if not direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of the Qumran community.

Along with the Pharisees, the Sadducees were a religious-political group that sought the support of the ruling powers. It is in the context of the patron-retainer relationship that we first hear of the Sadducees. Josephus relates how the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus switched from being the patron of the Pharisees to that of the Sadducees. When the Pharisee Eliezer suggested that Hyrcanus step down from the high priesthood due to his uncertain lineage, Hyrcanus became very angry and wanted Eliezer to be executed. The rest of the Pharisees suggested that he merely be bound and whipped, since they had a tradition of passing light sentences. A Sadducee suggested that they passed such a light sentence because they agreed with Eliezer that Hyrcanus was unsuitable to be high priest. Hyrcanus then cast his support behind the Sadducees and abolished the laws that the Pharisees had given to the populace.

Josephus gives the following general description of the Sadducees’ beliefs and relationship with the general populace. (1) The Sadducees rejected fate; things are the result of human action alone. Along with this, God stands aloof from humans concerning good and evil actions. Good and evil are the result of human action. (2) The Sadducees believed that the soul dies along with the body. (3) They accepted only the written law and had no oral tradition. Some take this last point to mean that they accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture, but this goes beyond what Josephus says about them.

Josephus goes on to write that Sadducees were as contentious in their disputes with fellow Sadducees as with people outside the group, and they did not hold their elders in esteem. They had influence over the elite, but no say with the populace at large.

The Sadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John, although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesus with the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. All three Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadducees posed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answered that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, and that God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).

The book of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected to the priesthood (Acts 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with the Pharisees over the resurrection (Acts 23:6–8).

Essenes

The Essenes are the third “philosophical school” mentioned by Josephus. Most scholars consider the Qumran sectarians who produced the DSS to be Essenes. This has created a number of circular arguments, since the DSS are then used to confirm the nature of Essene beliefs. That being said, there is good evidence that the Qumran sectarians were at least in part Essene. The Essenes are not mentioned in the NT or in rabbinic literature, but they do appear in the writings of Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder.

Josephus delineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows. (1) They ascribed every happening to God. (2) They believed in the immortality of the soul.

Josephus writes at great length concerning the Essenes’ way of life. They lived an ascetic lifestyle, avoided pleasure, and devoted themselves to prayer. They shared all things in common and lived in harmony with one another. Some Essenes avoided marriage, whereas others regarded marriage and procreation as too central to human life to avoid. Certain Essenes could predict the future and interpret dreams. Concerning sacrifices, Josephus mentions that although they sent offerings to the temple, they had their own, superior sacrifices.

Philo writes that the Essenes were much admired due to their holy lives, living peaceably with one another and holding to the truth. Contrary to Josephus, Philo says that the Essenes did not sacrifice, but through study they kept their minds pure and holy.

The Essenes, as Josephus and Philo describe them, seem similar to the Qumran sectarians. The Qumran sectarians believed that God determines the fate of people (1QS 3:13–4:26). Although the sectarians believed in the immortality of the soul as well as divine reward and punishment, this does not seem to be emphasized in their writings.

Zealots

Scholars tend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to three different groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii, and Zealots. The three groups have different political ideologies and emerged at different times in the first century. They can all be described as revolutionaries.

The brigands were motivated not by religious or political ideology but by survival. Displaced from the traditional economic structure of Palestine—the agricultural village—by the Romans, the brigands stole from Jew and Roman alike. They hated the Romans because the Romans had driven them into poverty through taxation and transformation of the economy from subsistence-based agriculture to cash crops that could be sold more readily. (Money could be shipped to Rome more easily than crops.)

The other two groups, the Sicarii and the Zealots, fought the Romans and Jewish collaborators for political and religious reasons. They emerged at different times during the first century, and they should not be lumped together, for their methodologies and goals were somewhat different.

Josephus writes about what he calls the “fourth philosophy,” which he considers an alien element introduced into the religion and politics of Israel, begun in AD 6 by Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee. Their slogan was “No king but God,” and they engaged in a short-lived rebellion. It seems unclear whether the fourth philosophy should be a category that includes the brigands, the Sicarii, and the Zealots, or whether it is a group unto itself. Whatever the case, Josephus makes clear that this fourth philosophy is an anomaly in the history of Israel.

The Sicarii were a group of assassins who emerged in the AD 40s–50s. They specialized in mixing into Jerusalem crowds and murdering Jews who were friendly with the Romans, mainly the wealthy. The high priest Jonathan was one of their victims. At the start of the first Roman war, they commanded Jewish troops but were driven out by fellow Jews. They spent the rest of the war at Masada, conducting inconsequential exploits. They killed themselves in AD 73–74 rather than be captured by the Romans. Josephus writes that the leader of the Sicarii at the beginning of the first Roman war was Menahem, the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee. It has been speculated that Judas Iscariot’s surname may be derived from Sicarii, but the etymology is uncertain.

The Zealots emerged at the start of the first Roman war (AD 66–70). Josephus mentions them mainly in connection with the Roman war and seldom in other sections of his writings. They consisted mainly of people displaced by Roman activity in Galilee. They targeted the aristocracy that collaborated with Rome, the Romans themselves, and other revolutionary groups. One of Jesus’ disciples was called “Simon the Zealot” (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), but this is likely a reference to his zealous faith.

The first Roman war erupted when the Roman procurator Florus looted the temple. When nothing was done concerning this, the lower priests, the captain of the temple guard, Eleazar, and other revolutionary leaders decided to terminate the temple sacrifice made on the emperor’s behalf. This essentially started the Roman war and gave rise to the Zealots.

Herodians

The Herodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reported to have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after he healed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are also described, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesus concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13).

The Herodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and the Romans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to be some overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”), whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religious beliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too little information about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions. One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Roman aristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees in opposing Jesus.

A Jewish prophet at the time of Jesus, he was the son of priestly parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth), executed by Herod Antipas, and identified as “John” (a common Jewish name), often with the title “the Baptist” or “the Baptizer,” the latter possibly being the older title.

Our primary sources on John the Baptist are the canonical Gospels, Josephus (Ant. 18.116–19), and Acts. Both Jewish and Christian sources note John’s message of the kingdom, call to baptism, and popularity. Josephus and the Gospels can speak of him without introduction. In the Gospels, only Jesus is a more prominent character. It is possible that the typical peasant was more familiar with John than with Jesus, at least until after Pentecost.

The Gospels, particularly Luke, parallel the stories of John and Jesus. Both had an annunciation, a miraculous birth accompanied by praise, and a martyr’s death. Both gathered disciples, announced the kingdom, denounced the Jewish leadership, and practiced baptism. It is easy to see how some on the periphery confused the characters (Mark 8:28).

Ministry

Dressed in a prophet’s garment of camel’s hair (Matt. 3:4; cf. 2 Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4), the Baptist is noted for emerging from the wilderness and preaching near the Jordan. He called all listeners to repent to prepare Israel for the coming covenant of the Spirit. He and his message were well known, disconcerting Jerusalem’s powerful elite (Mark 11:32) and enthralling the masses (Matt. 3:5–6).

John the Baptist unwaveringly maintained that he was sent to introduce the Son (or Chosen One) of God, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33–34; cf. Matt. 3:11–12 pars.). This one was not named, but the Baptist was told how he would know him: “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one” (John 1:33). Thus, the Baptist could claim, “I myself did not know him” (John 1:31), more likely meaning that the Baptist did not know Jesus was the one until the Spirit descended on him (1:32). It is less likely that John meant that he had not met his cousin previously (Luke 1:39–45). Jesus accepts (and validates) the Baptist’s proclamation both at the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:9) and again later (Luke 16:16; John 5:35; 10:41).

After his imprisonment, the Baptist seems less certain of his earlier identification of Jesus as the coming one (Matt. 11:2–3). It should also be noted that John had not disbanded his disciples. After his death, some continued to preach his baptism of repentance as far away as in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–26; 19:1–7). Similarly, Jesus’ last description of the Baptist is ambiguous. It is guarded but still complimentary (John 5:32–36; 10:41) and even lofty: “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist”; however, Jesus’ next statement could be interpreted to mean that the Baptist was not yet part of the coming kingdom: “Yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Like everyone else, John was confused by Jesus’ preaching ministry. Jesus was not acting like the Messiah they were expecting (Luke 7:18–20). The Gospels offer no final verdict on the Baptist.

Message

Like Isaiah, the Baptist’s message of restoration of the kingdom meant comfort and hope for those preparing for its arrival (Isa. 40; Mark 1:2–6) and judgment for those unprepared (Isa. 41; Matt. 3:7–10; Luke 3:7–9). The return of the kingdom was by a new covenant, marked by the Spirit (Mark 1:2–8). Cleansing with water is connected to replacing the old covenant (etched in stone) with the new (imbedded in hearts with the Spirit) by the prophets (Ezek. 36:24–28; Jer. 31), by the Baptist (John 1:31–33), by Jesus (John 3:5), and by early Christians (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 9–10). Preparing (Matt. 3:3) meant repenting and living in piety and justice as a member of the kingdom (Luke 3:10–14). This commitment of renewed faithfulness was marked by one’s own (ethical) cleansing, symbolized in baptism. While ritual lustrations were somewhat common for initiation or membership in a group, John the Baptist called all who would devote themselves to God to repent, confess their sins, and be baptized (Mark 1:4–5).

The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus and John as allies in announcing the kingdom. It has been argued that the Fourth Gospel has an anti-Baptist polemic. Because of historical elements (in Ephesus?), it may be more accurate to say that the Fourth Gospel strives to clarify the Baptist’s place in salvation history. He is subordinate to Jesus by divine design (John 1–5) and by deed (John 10:41). He was the Elijah who was to come before the Christ (Matt. 11:14).

Judgment Day in the Bible

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

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

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

Justification and Judgment

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

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

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

Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancient Israel or the early church, archaeology informs us what they were like. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for a wick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech. 4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persian period, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece. Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle, were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanterns were developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which had been used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus in Gethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).

Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1 Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).

The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2 Sam. 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).

Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancient Israel or the early church, archaeology informs us what they were like. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for a wick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech. 4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persian period, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece. Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle, were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanterns were developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which had been used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus in Gethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).

Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1 Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).

The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2 Sam. 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).

Judgment Day in the Bible

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

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

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

Justification and Judgment

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

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

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

The word “mission” was coined by the Jesuits in the sixteenth century to refer to the sending of the Godhead into the world, reflecting a particular trinitarian formulation. The Jesuits used the term “mission” to describe the Father, who sends the Son, who sends the Holy Spirit, who sends the church into the world as an agent of redemption and reconciliation. Simply put, the Jesuits conceived of mission as sending. That biblical term “send” (e.g., Gk. apostellō) described the fundamental nature of the church as being sent by God into the world with a specific purpose, animated by the Holy Spirit to accomplish its task given by God, as a sign and instrument of God’s kingdom. Initially, the Jesuits employed the term in the context of both the conversion of heathens (those who failed to recognize the God of the Bible) and the reconversion of Protestants to Roman Catholicism.

The biblical notion of mission affirms that God is a sending God (Lat., missio Dei), who loves the world so much that he sent his Son into the world to redeem it (e.g., John 3:16), and whose Son then sends the Holy Spirit as the Counselor (Gk. paraklētos [e.g., John 16:5–7]) and guide so that the church can fulfill its purpose. Mission (sending), therefore, expresses both the heart of God and the nature of the church in the world.

The Role of Language and Culture

Functionally, mission is the sharing of the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed across cultural and linguistic boundaries, without granting any particular language or culture a superior position in the divine economy. The Bible tells the story of God’s mission in offering human beings a covenantal relationship with himself. South African mission scholar David Bosch suggests that the missionary in the OT is God himself, whereas the NT presents several significant missionaries, with Jesus and his disciples being the most illustrative examples. Indeed, it can be said that the NT is itself a mission document, since it was written by people actively involved in mission (e.g., Paul, Luke). Biblically, the Christian mission implies a certain perspective on language and culture whereby all languages and cultures are relativized in the light of Christ, with no language or culture having privileged access to God, for God communicates through every particular language and culture. Thus, for instance, Koreans, Zulus, Cambodians, Quechuas, and Swedes have the same access to God through their own language and culture, and none of them are required to adopt another language or culture, such as Hebrew, Greek, or English, in order to know and worship God.

The importance of the parity of languages and cultures worldwide as vehicles of the gospel is exemplified biblically in the account of the Jerusalem council, where the apostle Paul confronted Jewish Christians who would have made Torah and circumcision the litmus test of authentic faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15). Paul argued vigorously against those who sought to require new Christians to adopt Jewish ceremonial practices of the OT in order to join the body of Christ. The relativization of language and culture is so crucial to Christian mission that Scripture records Paul rebuking Peter for seeking to make Gentile Christians follow Jewish customs (Gal. 2:14). Requiring followers of Christ to adopt Jewish (or other) ceremonial traditions (e.g., circumcision) would render the grace of Christ useless, making a mockery of the cross (Gal. 2:21), since Christ liberates human beings within their own language and culture. Simply put, people were to become followers of Jesus Christ on the basis of their own language and culture (Greek or otherwise) rather than according to any other tradition. According to the biblical account, no language or culture is too profane to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ.

Mission as Sending

Biblically, sending implies a sender, the one sent, and a message. The sender is the agent who initiates the deliverance of the message. The one sent has been given the authority to deliver in word and deed the message of the sender. The message refers to the content in word and deed that is shared by the agent (e.g., missionary) of the sender. The authority of the sender is invested in the messenger, so much so that the messenger (e.g., the missionary) represents the sender directly. More broadly, the biblical term “sending” appears in both Testaments, and it occurs in mundane contexts that are not concerned with God’s mission (missio Dei) as well as in texts that are explicitly mission related. In the OT, the Hebrew term shalakh, which occurs in various forms over eight hundred times, refers to sending the intentions of an authority figure, often a king, judge, or other person of high status. An example would be God, as a demonstration of his authority, sending Adam out of the garden (Gen. 3:23). The act of sending expresses the intention of the sender. The mission of God as presented in the OT is communicated clearly in Gen. 12:1–3 (in what is known as the Abrahamic covenant), where God tells Abram to leave his country, guided by God, in order to be a blessing to the entire world. Following Israel’s continual disobedience, God promises to send them a savior (Isa. 19:20), a statement that Christians interpret as foreshadowing the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ.

In the NT, the Greek terms for “send,” and their variations, occur over two hundred times, appearing in texts such as “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves” (Matt. 10:16); “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21); and “Jesus sent two of his disciples” (Mark 11:1). People often assume that there is one Great Commission text, Matt. 28:18–20, which summarizes the biblical warrant for mission. However, there are several “great commissions” in the Gospels, which might be better understood as “last commissions.” Each Gospel writer records his own version of the last commission, reflecting his theological purposes within the particular contexts out of which he writes his account. The last commissions appear in Matt. 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–20; Luke 24:44–47; John 20:19–23.

The most responsible interpretive strategy with regard to these passages is to read them within the larger context of each Gospel narrative rather than as individual texts (i.e., proof texts) disconnected from their wider context. That is to say, a faithful theology of mission in part entails letting the text interpret itself through study of the entire Gospel account. Otherwise, one may fail to understand the biblical notion of mission in its entirety. For instance, Luke 24:47 announces that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [Christ’s] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” which emphasizes the need for confession, forgiveness, and redemption (vertical aspects of mission). Yet one could misinterpret Luke’s Gospel were one to understand mission solely through the words of Luke 24:44–47, the vertical (spiritual) aspect, while overlooking Luke 4:16–30, verses that announce Jesus’ mission to liberate captives and give sight to the blind, reflecting the horizontal (social) nature of mission. In Luke’s Gospel, mission is characterized as equally vertical (i.e., calling for repentance and forgiveness) and horizontal (i.e., seeking sociopolitical justice). According to Luke’s Gospel, then, both vertical and horizontal aspects must be present in mission.

Mission and Missions

It is worthwhile to note the difference between the terms “mission” (sg.) and “missions” (pl.). Whereas “mission” refers to the singular act of God, who sends his Son, who sends the Holy Spirit into the world, “missions” refers to the specific agencies and organizations in history and currently that have sought to carry out that mission of God. There is only one mission (missio Dei), with several missions aiming to accomplish that singular mission through time and space. Generally, missions are divided into denominational and faith missions. Denominational missions, such as those of Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian churches, send out missionaries financially supported by the denomination. Faith missions, such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, Operation Mobilization, or SIM (Serving in Mission, formally Sudan Interior Mission), require that missionaries serve in mission by faith, either by going where they are called by God without having prior financial support or by raising financial support from friends and churches prior to leaving for their intended region of service.

Conclusion

Finally, there are two important lessons from the biblical account of mission. First, Paul and the other disciples, while seeking to communicate the gospel of good news to particular people, sought to maintain the unity of the churches in the face of their diverse cultural and linguistic makeup (e.g., Eph. 4:4–7). This means that a biblical perspective on mission sees culture and language as channels rather than obstacles to the communication of the gospel. Second, Paul and the disciples never started missions but rather established churches. Since mission implies movement across cultural and linguistic frontiers, the earlier followers of Christ were on the move, with the conviction that the Holy Spirit would guide, direct, and protect them until Christ returned.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

The age to come is the time when Christ will return and establish his kingdom in all its fullness and glory. The Jews living in intertestamental times experienced great persecution and sufferings and looked ahead in hope and anticipation to a future coming age of a messiah, with all its associated blessings. Both John the Baptist and Jesus pointed to how this new age had already drawn near with their message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus taught that “the kingdom of God has come upon you” during his earthly ministry (Matt. 12:28), and he promised that anyone who has been born again can “see” or “enter” the kingdom right then (using present-tense verbs in John 3:3, 5). At the same time, Jesus was equally clear that the kingdom had not come in all its fullness during his earthly ministry, and he instructed his disciples to continue to look ahead and pray specifically, “your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10). Consequently, many have described the kingdom as being both “already” and “not yet” in the sense that God’s kingdom has already begun with Christ’s first coming, even though the fullness of the kingdom still lies in the future. Thus, in one sense “the age to come” began with Jesus’ earthly ministry, especially his death and resurrection. Peter could also describe the giving of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost as taking place in “the last days” (Acts 2:17), thus marking the beginning of the age to come. Consequently, believers find themselves living in the tension between already experiencing the transforming power of a new life in Christ and still living in what the Bible elsewhere describes as “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) under the power of Satan as “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). The challenge for believers is to look ahead by faith and “lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age” (1 Tim. 6:19), when Christ will return and fully establish his kingdom. See also Advent, Second; Eschatology; Second Coming.

One of the many pictures of salvation that the Bible uses is new birth. Peter praises God because “he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). In his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus states, “No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3:3). He goes on to explain further that this act of new birth is the work of the Spirit (John 3:5–8). What Jesus speaks of, God had promised in the OT (Ezek. 36:25–27). Paul uses similar language when he asserts that God “made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions” (Eph. 2:5). Because of our sinful rebellion against God, humanity is spiritually dead. God the Father makes alive those who are spiritually dead by the work of the Spirit through the resurrection of Jesus. This new birth is the starting point for the believer’s moral transformation. See also Regeneration.

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

The term “predestination” means “to determine or decide something beforehand.” Some form of the Greek verb proorizō (“to determine beforehand”) occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). It is practically synonymous with the concept of foreordination and is closely related to divine foreknowledge (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:1–2, 20). Various Scriptures indicate that God the Father is the one who predestines (John 17:6–10; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3–5; 1 Pet. 1:2).

The specific objects of predestination are humans, angels, and the Messiah. These divine predeterminations occurred before the creation of the world and were motivated by the love of God (Eph. 1:4–5). In regard to humans, this means that in eternity past, God determined that some individuals would be the recipients of his salvation. However, this determination does not rule out the necessity of human choice, responsibility, and faith. The decision to predestine some individuals for salvation was based not upon anything good or bad in the recipients, but solely on God’s good pleasure and according to his holy, wise, and eternal purpose (Isa. 46:10; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:33).

Predestination as Part of God’s Larger Plan

The scope of God’s plan. Predestination is a part of God’s all-encompassing eternal plan (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; Eph. 1:11). Several terms express God’s plan. Among these are his “decree” (Ps. 2:7), “eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11), “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23), and “will” (Eph. 1:9, 11). God’s plan involves all things that come to pass, including major and insignificant events, direct and indirect causes, things appointed and things permitted. It therefore encompasses both good and evil (Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 14:24–27; 22:11; 37:26–27; 46:9–10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).

The inclusion of evil in the plan of God does not mean that he condones, authorizes, or commits moral evil. The apostle John stresses that God is light and that there is no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5). He is absolutely holy and cannot be charged with the commission of sin (Hab. 1:13). When addressing the topic of God’s plan and purpose, the biblical authors are careful to distinguish between divine causation and human responsibility. Both fall under the purview of God’s plan. There is divine certainty about what will happen, but moral agents are never under compulsion to commit evil (see Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:11; 1 Cor. 2:7; 11:2; Heb. 2:5, 10–16; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 2 Pet. 3:17). For example, when Luke refers to the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, he indicates that it was predestined by God, but the moral turpitude of the act is attributed to “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). The dual nature of such events is aptly reflected in Joseph’s statement to his brothers who sold him into slavery: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20 NASB).

Whereas the all-encompassing plan of God relates to his sovereign control over all things, predestination appears to be restricted primarily to certain divine decisions affecting humans, angels, and the Messiah (Isa. 42:1–7; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2:4). With reference to humans, Paul states, “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). Some scholars limit predestination to those things “in him,” thus linking this work of God to his purpose in salvation. Others argue that the following phrase, “who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,” demonstrates that all things fall under the purview of God’s controlling and guiding purpose (Eph. 1:11). It seems best to see the phrase “in him” as indicating the sphere in which believers are chosen and the term “predestinated” as one crucial aspect of the greater plan of God.

Divine foreknowledge and election. Some theologians argue that election and predestination are merely based upon God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe in him. Although God surely knows all those who will believe, the term “foreknowledge” connotes much more than simply knowing ahead of time who will come to faith. It means that God has sovereignly chosen to know some individuals in such an intimate way that it moved him to predestine them to eternal life (Rom. 8:29). Whereas the term “election” refers to God’s sovereign choice of those individuals, “predestination” looks forward toward the goal of that selection. Both predestination and election occur in eternity past (Eph. 1:4–5).

The purpose of predestination. Whereas election refers to God’s choice of individuals, predestination looks toward the purpose and goal of that choice. NT believers are designated as chosen by God and appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4). The express purpose is that they be adopted as his children (Eph. 1:5) and, as beloved children, become “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). The idea is that those whom God has chosen are predestined in view of the purpose that he desires to fulfill in them, that of becoming his children who are conformed to the image of his Son. The ultimate purpose behind this plan is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5–6, 11–12).

Predestination and Reprobation

In his plan, God has chosen some individuals, nations, groups, and angels to fulfill special purposes, implying that other individuals, nations, groups, and angels have not been selected for those same purposes (2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:2). With regard to God’s choice in salvation, this has led some theologians to argue that those not chosen for salvation are by default chosen for eternal damnation. They maintain that predestination applies not only to individuals whom God plans to save, but also to those whom he does not plan to save (Prov. 16:4; Matt. 26:23–24; Rom. 9:10–13, 17–18, 21–22; 2 Tim. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:3, 9; Jude 4; Rev. 13:8; 20:15). This is sometimes called “reprobation.” The belief in the combined concepts of election and reprobation has been called “double predestination.”

While some scholars in the history of the church have argued that God is just as active in determining the reprobate as he is the elect, others have pointed out that God’s condemnation of the nonelect is based solely upon their sin and unbelief. A real distinction exists in the level of divine involvement with regard to the destiny of one class as compared with the other. God does not appear to have the same relationship to every event or thing in his creation. The degree of divine causation in each case differs. Scripture recognizes a difference between God’s direct working and his permissive will. In this view, God directly chooses some to be saved; however, he does not choose the others to be damned but rather passes them by, allowing them to continue on their own way and eventually suffer the just punishment that their sins deserve.

Whichever view one takes, it seems that the Scripture does not teach reprobation in the same way it teaches predestination leading to eternal life. Whereas the assignment to eternal death is a judicial act taking into account a person’s sin, predestination unto eternal life is purely an act of God’s sovereign grace and mercy not taking into account any actions by those chosen. Carrying the teaching of reprobation to the extreme threatens to view God as capricious, which clearly is not scriptural (1 John 1:5).

Predestination and Human Responsibility

God was in no way obligated or morally impelled to choose or predestine anyone to eternal life. His determination not to choose everyone in no way impinges upon his holy and righteous character (Rom. 9:13). On the contrary, justice would demand that all receive the punishment that they have rightly earned for their sins (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Therefore, the predestination of some to become like his Son required that God exercise grace and mercy in providing for the cleansing of their sin, which he accomplished through the sacrifice of his beloved Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23).

God’s predetermined plan does not force individuals to respond in predetermined ways, either to accept him or to reject him. In the one case, the sinner is drawn by God to himself but must also choose to place trust in Christ (John 6:37, 44). Even in the radical intervention of God in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus, where the divine call was indeed overpowering, Saul was given opportunity to respond either positively or negatively. In the case of those who are headed for eternal judgment, God’s working is not fatalistic or mechanistic in the sense that a person may want to choose God but God’s predetermined plan will not allow such a response. To the contrary, all are invited to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28; John 3:16). The apostle John clarifies, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 [cf. Matt. 11:28]). Those who do not come to God refuse to do so by their own volition (Matt. 23:37; John 5:40). They are not merely unable to come to God but unwilling to do so (John 5:40; 6:65; Rom. 3:11). The NT teaches that Christ died for their sins (John 3:16), pleadingly warns them to repent, and cites their transgressions as the reason for their condemnation (1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:21–22; Jude 8–16). When all aspects of the issue are considered, there is indeed a mystery that lies outside the boundaries of our comprehension regarding God’s sovereign working and human choice.

A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44–48; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Old Testament

The promises in the OT are closely related to the history of salvation. At each stage of redemptive history, God delivered a new message about redemption, usually in the form of a covenant. Immediately after the fall of humankind, God first revealed his plan of salvation: the promise that the seed of the woman would ultimately crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17).

Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.

At Mount Sinai, God made another covenant with the Israelites. In this covenant, God promised that they would be his “treasured possession” among the nations if they would obey him and keep his covenant (Exod. 19:5). God’s special blessings were pronounced for them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). For this purpose, God gave them the Ten Commandments, which became the religious and ethical standard for his covenant people (20:1–17). In the book of Deuteronomy, moreover, God’s promises were made in the form of blessings to the obedient and of curses to the disobedient (Deut. 28). Later these became the criteria by which the kings of Israel were judged to determine whether they had lived an obedient life.

According to 2 Sam. 7:11–16, God made an eternal covenant with David, promising the permanence of David’s house, kingdom, and throne. In this covenant it was also promised that his offspring would build the house of the Lord. The Davidic covenant was partially fulfilled at the time of Solomon, who as king built the house of the Lord, the first temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:15–25). Later, in the period of the classical prophets, when the hope for the Davidic throne was endangered, the permanence of the Davidic throne and kingdom reappeared in the form of messianic prophecy (Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:24–28). This promise was ultimately fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

The history of Israel shows that although the nation repeatedly broke God’s covenants, he remained faithful to them. According to Num. 23:19, God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” The trustworthiness of God’s promises results from his unchanging character (Ps. 110:4; Mal. 3:6–7). The almighty God has the power to fulfill his promises (Isa. 55:11). When Joshua finished conquering the land of Canaan, he confessed that God was faithful in keeping all his promises to his ancestors (Josh. 21:45; 23:14–15). Joshua himself witnessed that trusting God’s promises is a life-and-death issue. Those who had not trusted his promise to give them the land of Canaan perished in the wilderness, but those who had trusted his promise were allowed to enter it (Num. 14:1–35).

New Testament

The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.

In the book of Hebrews, the concept of promise plays an important role. In Heb. 6 Abraham is presented as the exemplary man who trusted in God’s promise. The author exhorts the Hebrew Christians to follow Abraham’s model of trust in God’s promise (6:12–20). The author also asserts that Jesus’ new covenant is superior to the old one because his ministry “is established on better promises” (8:6). In Heb. 11 the faith of the great OT saints is acclaimed in terms of their faith in God’s promises.

In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1 Cor. 15:48–57; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1 John 1:9).

Human Promises

The Scriptures contain many cases of people making promises to other people. For example, Abraham made promises to the king of Sodom and to Abimelek (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:22–24). The Israelite spies made a promise to Rahab (Josh. 2:12–21). People also make promises to God: Jacob, Jephthah, Hannah, and the returning exiles (Gen. 28:20–21; Judg. 11:29–40; 1 Sam. 1:11–20; Neh. 10:28–29). Human promises usually are accompanied by the taking of an oath (Gen. 14:22; 21:24; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 2:12–14) or the declaration of a curse in case of its breach (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 14:24; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23). It is imperative to keep the promise that one makes to a human being or to God (Num. 30:1–2; Ps. 50:14). In Mal. 2:14–16, divorce is regarded as a breaking of the oath between husband and wife. In OT times, people were afraid of curses falling upon them when they broke a promise. The Bible warns of the danger of making false promises, as doing so will bring about sin and judgment (Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21; Zech. 8:17). It is an axiom of the wisdom literature that one should not make promises rashly or lightly (Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:1–7), and Jesus prohibits the taking of any oath because of the possibility of its breach (Matt. 5:33–37).

In the most basic sense, regeneration refers to God giving new life to someone or something. Although the word “regeneration” does not appear in the NIV, the concept is abundantly present in a variety of terms and images, especially those of new birth, new life, new self, new heart, and new creation. The biblical concept of regeneration is applied to both individuals and creation.

Individuals. Because of Adam’s rebellion in the garden, humanity plunged into spiritual death (Rom. 5:12–14). Nothing short of God imparting new life to a person can overcome this condition. The classic expression of this truth is found in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:1–21). According to Jesus, entering the kingdom of God requires being born again, which he further explains as being “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3–5). Jesus’ description taps into the language of Ezek. 36:25–27, where God promises to sprinkle clean water on his people and put his Spirit within them.

Paul also attributes regeneration to the work of the Spirit when he says that God “saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5–7). The renewing work of the Spirit is the initial aspect of a person’s experience of salvation, but it is closely connected with several other aspects of God’s work in the believer, such as justification, inheritance, and eternal life. The transformation that regeneration begins is so profound that Paul can refer to it as an act of “new creation” in which a person who experiences it is, in a very real sense, an entirely new person (2 Cor. 5:17).

In addition to making a person spiritually alive, God’s act of regeneration places within the believer a new disposition or orientation toward faith in Christ and obedience to him. Those who are born of God believe that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 5:1), love God and others (4:7–11), and do not continue in sin (3:9). God makes sinners alive not only to show the riches of his grace (Eph. 2:4–7), but also so that they “do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (2:10).

Creation. God’s work of regeneration extends beyond the individual to the entire creation. Jesus refers to the consummation of God’s plans as “the renewal [palingenesia, ‘regeneration’] of all things” (Matt. 19:28). Because of Adam’s sin, creation was placed under a curse (Gen. 3:17–19). To this day, creation groans under that curse (Rom. 8:19–22). But in the OT, God promised to renew the created order (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). The death and resurrection of Jesus are the initial fulfillment of this cosmic regeneration (Matt. 27:51–53; 1 Cor. 15:20–23), but the completion awaits the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22).

The regeneration of the individual and creation are inseparable. God imparts new spiritual life to his chosen people so that they respond in faith and obedience to him. The same regenerating power that brings the believer alive will one day renew all creation to make a suitable place for God’s regenerate people to dwell. See also New Birth.

Terminology. The modern scientific category of reptiles (air-breathing, cold-blooded vertebrates) has no precise equivalent in the biblical vocabulary. The Hebrews described creatures by the way they moved, as “crawling things” (zakhal [Deut. 32:24; Mic. 7:17]), “creeping things” (remes [Gen. 1:25–26]), and “swarming things” (sherets [Gen. 7:21]). All these terms, which probably overlapped, included both reptiles and small mammals.

Nakhash (e.g., Gen. 3) is the commonest general term for snakes and other reptiles. Rarer terms are tannin (translated “snake” in Exod. 7:9, but more usually meaning a mythical “dragon”) and sarap (used, on its own or qualifying nakhash, of the fiery serpents in Num. 21:6, 8; Isa. 14:29; 30:6). In Greek, herpeton (Acts 10:12; 11:6; Rom. 1:23; James 3:7) includes snakes and lizards, while the generic word for snake is ophis (e.g., Matt. 7:10).

Besides these general terms, Scripture mentions the following: (1) the crocodile (liwyatan) found in Egypt and Israel and sometimes portrayed in poetry as a mythical monster (Job 3:8; 41:1; Pss. 74:14; 104:26; Isa. 27:1); (2) a variety of lizards, probably including geckos, skinks, and chameleons (Lev. 11:29, 30; Prov. 30:28); (3) a variety of poisonous snakes, including the cobra, or asp (Deut. 32:33; Rom. 3:13), and the viper, or adder (Isa. 59:5; Acts 28:3).

Although tortoises are common in the Middle East, the KJV translation of the Hebrew word tsab as “tortoise” in Lev. 11:29 almost certainly is wrong. However, since at least eighty kinds of reptile are found in Israel, precise identifications beyond this are difficult.

Reptiles in the Bible. The snake is an important image in Scripture. It is a snake that tempts Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1; 2 Cor. 11:3), and in the first promise of salvation God says that the seed of woman will crush the snake’s head (Gen. 3:15). From that moment, the snake is condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 65:25).

All such crawling creatures were unclean in OT law (Lev. 11:29–31). Although some Middle Eastern snakes are nonpoisonous, the OT always portrays snakes as harmful as well as unclean (Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Eccles. 10:8, 11; Isa. 30:6; Amos 5:19; Matt. 7:10; Luke 11:11). Because the venom was associated with the snake’s tongue, the snake was a symbol of treacherous, lying speech as well as of physical danger (Gen. 49:17; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; 51:34; Matt. 23:33; Rev. 9:19), shrewdness (Matt. 10:16), and degradation (Mic. 7:17). For snakes to be rendered harmless was a sign of divine intervention (Ps. 91:13) and of the messianic age (Isa. 11:8; Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18). Paul and John identify the snake in Eden with Satan and look forward to his total destruction in the last days (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9–17; 20:2–3).

Snakes feature three times in biblical miracles. First, Aaron’s rod was transformed into a serpent that, when Pharaoh’s magicians replicated the feat, devoured the magicians’ serpents (Exod. 7:10–15; cf. 4:3–4). This would have impressed Pharaoh all the more because the snake was a symbol of the pharaoh’s power. Second, when God sent poisonous snakes to punish the Israelites, who repented, God told Moses to set up a bronze snake on a pole; anyone who looked at the bronze snake (which only much later became an object of idolatry) was saved (Num. 21:6–9; 2 Kings 18:4). This prefigured the cross, on which Christ became a curse for us (John 3:14; 1 Cor. 10:9; Gal. 3:10). Third, Paul was bitten by a snake and suffered no harm (Acts 28:3–6).

God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect creator of the universe; and we are his creatures—no less, but also no more. Thus, an unimaginable distance must exist between God and us; and this fact has led some theologians to despair of knowing anything about him for sure, not even that he actually has these attributes of deity. It might seem, furthermore, that some biblical texts encourage such a view. Psalm 92:5 recognizes the distance: “How great are your works, O Lord, how profound your thoughts!” Psalm 145:3 says that “no one can fathom” God’s greatness. According to Ps. 147:5, “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.” In Ps. 139:6, David tries to comprehend God’s perfect insight and concludes, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.” The doxology of Rom. 11:33–36 exults in the uniqueness of God: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” In Isa. 55:9, God says, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” Based on these passages and others, and knowing what the difference between creator and creature must generally imply, one might suspect that we can know nothing of substance about God.

In fact, however, the biblical writers tell a different story, being cautiously optimistic about theology’s prospects. On the one hand, they note our creaturely limitations and God’s transcendence, as seen above. We cannot fully comprehend our Creator. We never will, not even through the eons of eternity. God will always have something more to show us about himself, more that we can learn and adore. In that sense, the biblical writers are cautious about what theology can grasp. On the other hand, we must be able to learn some things about God; otherwise, the Scriptures themselves would not exist, since they tell us about God and much else besides. Divine omnipotence, therefore, includes the ability to produce in us adequate theological understanding. We always lean on God, and no one understands him at all apart from his initiative. He remains sovereign over this event, as with any other. But God has made himself known in two general ways, according to Scripture.

General and Special Revelation

First, the biblical writers expect each of us to grasp something of God’s nature, based on what is called “general revelation.” General revelation operates in a broadcasted way, so to speak, relying upon commonplace experience and the latter’s God-given ability to make us aware of his existence and nature. We all see the heavens that “declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1). Paul argues that every person can detect the “invisible qualities” of God, his “eternal power and divine nature,” in what he has created, so that we have no excuse for decadent theology and behavior (Rom. 1:20). The law of God is “written on [our] hearts” (Rom. 2:15), so that we grasp what we owe to him and each other. Even though God has not spoken directly to every nation, “he has not left himself without testimony”; he has shown all people “kindness by giving [them] rain from heaven and crops in their seasons” (Acts 14:17). We can learn some things about God from these sources given to us, and thus we are accountable for right conduct in relationship to them. However, general revelation lacks the detail and assurance of what is called “special revelation.”

Special revelation differs from general revelation in having a target audience. It conveys information about God, human beings, and our world that cannot be deduced from everyday, highly accessible experience. Jesus suffered for our sins. Our trust in his death on the cross will save us. God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though there is one God. Christ will return in power and glory to judge all nations. We can think of God as our heavenly Father, a morally perfect deity who cares about the individual person. The Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness as we wonder how to pray. God is always sovereign, even over the wicked deeds of human beings and the suffering that they cause. These are essential points of Christian doctrine. Yet we cannot substantiate any of them by carefully observing ourselves, our world, or the facts of history. Indeed, sometimes our own thoughts lead us to resist these claims because they entail great mysteries. One can easily (but wrongly) equate “I do not understand this” with “This is false.” Thus, our knowledge of these doctrines rests upon God’s willingness to speak and our readiness to hear what he says with humility and trust, without having all our questions answered. The vehicle for this latter kind of knowledge is called “special revelation.”

All revelation is “special,” simply because we can learn nothing about God apart from his self-disclosure. However, theologians use the technical term “special revelation” to capture the idea that God has revealed some matters of doctrine only to specific people, with the expectation that they will preach these truths to others as he requires them to do. These doctrinal matters include the claims given above concerning some aspects of God’s nature, his attitude toward human beings, the plan of salvation, and so forth. Thus, the Bible is special revelation par excellence; likewise, the preaching of prophets, Jesus, and then his chosen apostles (to list them in chronological order) is special revelation. Of course, since we do not have access to prophetic teaching and the life and words of Christ apart from Scripture, the latter is our sole source of special revelation. We cannot now see and hear Jesus as his first-century observers did, but we encounter him as the incarnate Word through the inerrant written word of Scripture. Theology, therefore, concerns what the Bible says about God, humanity, Christ, and so forth, and it looks to general revelation, if at all, merely to corroborate or illustrate what Scripture substantiates. Likewise, the promises of God to bless the preaching of his truth attach to special revelation rather than to what one might glean from other sources (Isa. 55:11).

The Bible as Special Revelation

The Bible stands alone in revealing who God is and showing what pleases him. Its exact contents were ordained by God through inspiration. Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16), having been produced when people “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). Consequently, even though prophecy occurs in NT churches (1 Cor. 14), it is not received there as the unchallengeable teaching of OT prophets, Jesus, or his apostles. Rather, observers are to weigh carefully what prophets say (1 Cor. 14:29). John expressly warns of false prophecy in the churches: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). These facts should lead one to be cautious in using such phrases as “God told me that . . . ” and in urging other Christians to act upon anyone’s private sensations of being led by the Spirit, absent any objective reasons for doing so. Prophecy given by the Holy Spirit today should involve the application of biblical truth to present challenges and opportunities. The same principle applies to subjective promptings from the Holy Spirit. They should apply received doctrine without revising it and must always be tested by the church.

The sixty-six books of the Bible were written by real people, living in concrete historical settings, and using ordinary language. Yet they intend to speak of heavenly things and of a holy God. Consequently, theologians face the challenge of “seeing through” the Bible’s figurative statements and artistic forms to the truths they convey, but without landing in unhelpful abstractions. Most people who read the book of Exodus assume that God does not have an actual “arm” to outstretch (6:6) or a “face” that one may not see and live (33:23). But Moses chose these words to reveal something about God, and thus we have to ask how far the analogy goes and to what degree it reaches down to our human level of understanding. We know that God must somehow “talk down” to us, using our own language, even as he gives us historical and theological claims having real content. Balancing these two realities—the “otherness” of God and the earthiness of the written, human word that reveals him—is the delicate task of exegesis.

The interpreter must also negotiate the various kinds or genres of literature found in the Bible, especially the ones that seem most alien to our own ways of communicating. Our own documents do not (usually) feature the elaborate images of the book of Revelation or the structures of Hebrew poetry found in the Psalter, and we do not live in the first-century world. Therefore, to read the Scriptures correctly, we must become culturally literate, so that we see our texts through ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman eyes. These fields are studied with care, based on the assumption that the Bible’s forms of literature were customary for their own time. They were not entirely strange to their original audiences. Thus, they can become less strange to us; and since the Bible is fully human as well as fully divine, reading its pages through the appropriate cultural lenses will give us access to what the Spirit says to the churches.

Human Limitations

An analysis of general and special revelation should consider the so-called noetic effects of sin—that is, the effects that sin has upon our ability to reason and to learn. Human beings were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), having the capacity to interact with their Creator. They bear some “family resemblance” to God, notwithstanding their materiality and finitude. But when Adam and Eve sinned, they corrupted themselves and their descendants, so much so that Paul can describe them as being enslaved to sin and death (Rom. 5–6). Since the fall, the biblical writers have proclaimed the blindness of human beings to the things of God. All people are “under the power of sin,” and “there is no one who understands” (Rom. 3:9–11). In Eph. 2:1–3 Paul describes unrepentant sinners as being “dead in [their] transgressions and sins,” so that they follow carnal “desires and thoughts.” Even someone as naturally qualified as Nicodemus fails to see who Jesus is apart from the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:1–15). Fallen human beings do not see what they ought to see and grasp what they ought to grasp. They can even say in their hearts, “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1).

Human beings do not have 20/20 intellectual vision, and our desires are corrupted. Consequently, we do not benefit from God’s self-revelation as Adam did, not to mention the glorified Christian who knows fully (1 Cor. 13:12). In some cases, the sinner does not want to acknowledge the disclosures of God and thus does not perceive them. Habitual sin and doc-trin-al innovation can “sear” the conscience as with an iron, making “hypocritical liars” impervious to sound teaching (1 Tim. 4:2). Although the heavens declare the glory of God, and although “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb. 1:2), fallen human beings will not grasp these truths. Yet they remain accountable to God because the disabling wounds of sin are self-inflicted. Even the demons of Scripture, who identify Jesus accurately, recoil from what they clearly perceive (Matt. 8:29; Mark 3:11; 5:7), as do the Pharisees who attribute the Spirit’s work to Beelzebul (Matt. 12:22–32). In these cases, the difficulty is not cognitive but affective. Character becomes intellectual destiny.

The world abounds with religious viewpoints, each one claiming to reveal how it works and what constitutes the good life. It is also unlikely that each of them contains only false statements and no true ones. On the contrary, the major rivals to Christianity gain some converts, we may assume, by including fractions of truth and addressing some perceived human needs. Islam is not wrong in its rejection of polytheism and idolatry. Buddhism is right in its belief that suffering raises key philosophical questions. However, we should avoid saying that God has actually revealed something of his nature through these sources, as if their existence were a subset of general revelation. Paul may note the Athenians’ religiosity and illustrate a point by quoting one of their poets (Acts 17:22, 28), but his overall polemic makes it clear that he views their ideas as mistaken responses to general revelation. Similar remarks would apply to cults that mix some orthodoxy, based on Scripture, with enough error to pervert the whole. God is not speaking indistinctly through them; rather, they are mishandling what he has said through the biblical writers. In this sense, therefore, the Bible stands alone as the unique word of God.

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).

An early, tangible reminder of the goodness of God in rescuing his people from their sins (NIV: “bronze snake”). During the wilderness wanderings, the land of Edom lay in the path of the Israelites. The Israelites requested permission to pass through Edom, which the Edomites strongly denied (Num. 20:14–21). Forced to circle around Edom and head far out of their way, the Israelites began to complain yet again (Num. 21:4–5; see also Exod. 15:22–24; 16:1–3; 17:1–7). God responded by sending venomous snakes that killed many people (Num. 21:6). When the people admitted their sin and asked Moses to pray to God on their behalf, God commanded Moses to do a strange thing: he was to make a snake and put it on a pole. “Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (21:9).

This seemingly insignificant and bizarre episode in Israelite history resurfaces twice in the Bible. The good king Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent during his purification of the land of Judah from idolatrous worship. The writer of Kings explains that the serpent, which had come to be called “Nehushtan,” had itself become an idol, as the Israelites had been burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4). Jesus also makes mention of the bronze serpent in his famous dialogue with Nicodemus. In speak­ing of his impending death, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he, the Son of Man, must be lifted up from the earth, “just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert” (John 3:14). Those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life because of his being lifted up—that is, crucified (see John 12:32–34). Jesus’ reference to the bronze serpent emphasizes the simplicity of salvation through Christ. Just as the Israelites needed only to look to the bronze serpent, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from physical death, so also those who are dying in their sins need only look to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, trusting in God’s provision for their salvation from spiritual death.

When the Israelites grumbled in the wilderness, God sent “venomous [lit., “burning”; Heb. serapim] snakes” that bit the people (Num. 21:4–9; cf. KJV: “fiery serpents”). In response to Moses’ prayer on their behalf, God commanded Moses to make a sarap and put it on a pole; the people who looked at it would live. Moses made a bronze serpent. Because the people worshiped the bronze serpent, Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kings 18:4). Jesus likened the bronze serpent lifted up in the wilderness to the Son of Man being lifted up (John 3:14). From a human perspective, both a serpent and a crucified messiah were unlikely objects of faith.

“Burning snake” appears in Deut. 8:15 (NIV: “venomous snakes”); the burning aspect may refer to the effects of the venom. Isaiah employed the image of a “flying” venomous snake in referring to Ahaz’s successor (Isa. 14:29 KJV; NIV: “darting”). Serapim appeared in Isaiah’s vision of the supernatural winged creatures flying above the throne of God; one brought a burning coal to touch Isaiah’s lips (Isa. 6:2–6). See also Seraphim.

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

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

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

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

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

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

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

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.