1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
A Friday We Call “Good”
Hebrews 10:16-25
Sermon
by David O. Bales
After our last trip to Israel, a number in our group met to share photos and memories. Several of us said that we didn't respond favorably to the elaborate Byzantine and medieval church buildings. They made none of us feel particularly worshipful. We'd rather be outside and see the place something like it was when the folk of the Bible were there.
Yet, our visiting Jerusalem and seeing the places was sufficient for us because we already have our times and places that make us feel worshipful. The tragedy greater than being put off by a 1,000-year-old church building is that some people attend worship every week in their own community and experience there the barrenness that we felt in those huge, empty, old structures. Some people in worship have no more communion with God than they could by contemplating cold stones in a Jerusalem sidewalk.
Maybe once they looked forward to worship. Maybe they even hold pleasant memories of times with God and God's people, but today no verve or zest, no vigor or vitality penetrates their lives through worship. Worship has deflated in value until it's something to be endured. It's empty motions, mere ritual, trivial repetition, a habit that used to be significant but now is as dry as Israel's Negev wilderness.
Christian worship has become, for many, a fruitless repetition like that of a priest in Jerusalem's ancient temple who, as Hebrews says, "stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins." Worship becomes so meaningless that on Sundays many people choose the stuffing of dollars into slot machines. At least with a slot machine there's a payout sometime, though in the end it empties your whole wallet.
Maybe worship withers for people because they haven't known or have forgotten that Jesus didn't suffer on the cross just for the worst of people and problems, or even for the best of people and their potential. He hung on the cross for all of us, even for us who have the average, even the predictable, problem of our worship drying up. What Jesus accomplished has to do even with us and with our difficulties in experiencing God afresh in worship. Jesus died so that even we could rekindle our expectancy for a burning, passionate experience with God. We're not the first to feel that worship isn't even as exciting as going for our yearly physical. At least going to the doctor can strike a little fear in you.
No matter how much people enjoy criticizing worship on the drive home from church or dining at Sunday's dinner of roast pastor, the book of Hebrews points us toward a problem that's deeper than craving for novelty or yearning for the good old days in worship. Our problem with worship isn't because we're bored with old songs or hate new ones. Our problem isn't that the preacher is too intellectual or too ignorant, too liberal or too conservative, that the sanctuary is too bright or too dark, that the choir is too formal or too folksy. Our dullness comes from a deeper source. The problem is within us, and that's where God promises to make the real changes in worship.
Often the deeper reason for boredom in worship is that we've chosen not to face God. That's how some people choose a church. They want a quiet, dignified, religious place to come and hide from the almighty God of the scriptures. They seek a religious lodge, club, or museum to visit, but not to be challenged in, and certainly in which they don't want any of their life, let alone their inner self, to be invaded. People have sought such churches asking for short rations of religion, because they fear what would happen if they were filled with God. No, let's just go to worship and sing the songs — then complain about them — sit in our straight rows and look at the back of peoples' heads — then mention how unfriendly everyone is, and endure the sermon — sifting out the majority and grasping the small fraction that agrees with the people we already are and twisting what we can't ignore until it confirms the distance at which we hold God.
"This is the covenant that I will make with them.... I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds" (Hebrews 10:16). Here's where God aims to meet us, right at the center of our being that the Bible calls our heart. The problem isn't hanging loosely on the fringe of our outward habits but deep within where God waits to grab our attention as only loving us sacrificially can do. In worship, God offers more than a twinge of peace, a spurt of inspiration, or an interesting new thought. The cool spring water of God's love gushes up from a deeper source. When it truly springs up within you, you can't stop it: water everywhere, the Spirit washing us of our sins and refreshing us into eternal life. Worship flows from God to us, not the other way around; it floods us with the presence of a God who will suffer for us. Thus, worship can be painful, even life threatening; yet it's infinitely hopeful.
Since God is the one with whom we deal in worship, sometimes our problem is that we've jettisoned the biblical God. Instead we've fabricated our own God. Each of us is formally guaranteed this freedom by the US Constitution — freedom from religion it could also be called. We're protected in our right to have a domesticated god, or a god we form by gluing the crumbs of Western religions upon the wishes of Eastern philosophies.
No wonder there's no joy in worship. How can you get excited about worshiping a God gathered at an intellectual delicatessen? The folks in the Old Testament, be they ever so bloody or shortsighted, shouted for joy in the presence of the God they worshiped. The early Christians, no matter how wrong they were about Jesus' returning soon, risked death to worship. They did so because they didn't just know about the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, they'd been met by that God, loved and forgiven by that God, and had surrendered to that God. One can have congenial thoughts about a God accumulated dab by dab from our American religious buffet or fused together from the scraps of psychology's latest fashions, but it's pretty hard to love such a concoction or to surrender to such an entity.
The book of Hebrews takes us to the deepest problem that God promises to solve. "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more" (Hebrews 10:17). This cuts toward the center of the whole stinking problem. It's not the place where we choose to look but where scripture forces us to face — the cross of Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of our sins.
We're not all such terrible people. It's just that we've chosen to go our own ways, to form our own opinions, and to clutch our own values. Until pretty soon, it's "mine, mine, mine" that I'm worried about. We slowly push God out of our daily decisions. We've chosen not to pray about daily, mundane matters. We pretend we don't want to bother God with such trivialities, and all the while we actually neglect God's summons. Finally, like sheep that nibble themselves away from the flock, we find ourselves with the sun setting, the flock and shepherd out of sight and sound, and here we are caught on a hillside. We can't go up, and we dare not go down. The big decision time has come, yet our hundreds of little decisions have taken us farther and farther away from the source of help.
We need forgiveness, need it like we need our life's breath. We need God's renewing grace to surge through us like a hurricane across the Florida Keys, because there's so much that needs to be blown out and refreshed, so much — like a moth-balled ship — that needs to be ripped out, scraped clean, polished, and recommissioned, because our character and relationships suffer terribly without God, until our inner lives look like No Man's Land during World War I. You can't get across it, but you fear what might come from it.
How can we truly return to God? How can we face God again, when we've consistently slipped so far away? How could we trust that after our flirting with everything less than God that God would want us back?
For Israel, their guarantee of God's forgiveness was seen in their twice-daily worship services. Morning and evening in the Jerusalem temple they offered sacrifice to God. By an animal's life dedicated to God the ritual helped people understand the seriousness of sin and the costliness of forgiveness. Most people felt satisfied with such worship. Some did not. How could a ritual with an animal assure us of God's acceptance? Our Lord Jesus, just a few blocks to the west of the temple, suffered on a cross for six hours on a Friday we call "Good," which means good for us anyway. Jesus is now the way that we understand our forgiveness. On this Friday, we remember how serious sin is and to what lengths God goes to demonstrate love and forgiveness to us.
Our text says that Jesus has opened for us a new and living way for us into God's presence. We have confidence to come back to God because of what Jesus has done — not because of what we've done, thought, or said, not because of what we've intended or promised; thus our confidence in approaching God can't be erased by the promises we've broken or the resolutions we haven't kept. Christ gets us through to God. What we've done and what we've become don't affect our being invited to God in worship. Through Christ God invites everyone, no entrance tests administered, no diploma needed, no strong family tree or full resume necessary.
God's eternal intention has been to hand this invitation to each of us through Christ. God reaches to us through Christ and delivers God's inscribed and embossed invitation through Jesus' scarred hands. The invitation reads: "Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh), and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water."
Our text proclaims, "He who has promised is faithful." We accept God's invitation and attend worship expecting to meet God here because God is faithful — faithful to Abraham and faithful over all the painful centuries with the Hebrew people, right up to Christ, and faithful finally to us — faithful no matter the pain we cause God. Such is the reason to attend worship expecting to encounter God, expecting something to happen between us and God, and expecting to regain our passion in faith. God has promised to meet us here, and "He who has promised is faithful."
In response to God's love and faithfulness, the book of Hebrews says we need to do three things: Continue to gather with one another for worship, cling tightly to our hope in God, and encourage one another in the ways of Jesus Christ. After we've met the great and good God, the faithful God who keeps promises and grants us unlimited access through Christ, and after we encourage one another in the faith, then remaining hopeful and continuing to gather regularly for worship isn't that hard to do. In fact, going to worship expectantly now is natural for us, because we experience again that worship has become supernatural. Amen.
CSS Publishing, Inc., Sermons for Sundays in Lent and Easter: Toward Easter And Beyond, by David O. Bales
The law and the sacrificial system it provides for relating to God are limited and ineffective in dealing with sin (10:1–2). It is impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins and cleanse the human heart (10:3–4). The preacher then quotes Psalm 40:6–8 to explain that Christ came to obey the Father and offer himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (10:5–10). As a result, Chris…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
The Levitical sacrifices are portrayed as inadequate in 10:1–4. They only foreshadowed the true salvation, which Christ has guaranteed and will someday bring to completion. This is the third and last of the contrary-to-fact conditional statements around which the central argument of this sermon is constructed. The appeal to the repetitive character of Levitical worship and its inability to cleanse the conscience (9:13–14) indicates that the author has not deviated from his original purpose. He is determined to persuade his readers that for salvation they must trust in Christ and his sacrifice and not in the rituals of Judaism. As is often supposed, he is not conceiving of the Old Testament order as a more primitive state of revelation and spirituality than the Christian era. He says nothing about that but instead compares a false theory of salvation with the fact of salvation in Christ alone. At the time Hebrews was written, a Christian might still have participated in the temple ritual (Acts 21:26) but could not think that such externalities were the substance of salvation any more than the faithful of the former epoch did (Ps. 51:16–17) or than a believer today should think of baptism or the Lord’s Supper as having in themselves, separated from Christ and faith, justifying or sanctifying efficacy. The coming of Christ is decisive to the author not because it lifts the religious experience of believers to a somewhat higher plane than that enjoyed by the saints of the former epoch but because Christ secured the salvation that all God’s people—past, present, and future—grasp by faith in this world and will enjoy in fullness in the next (Heb. 11:39–40). Believers in the former era rejoiced in the freedom from guilt that God’s grace provided (Exod. 34:6–7; Ps. 32:1–2; 103:10–12; 130:1–8; Isa. 38:17; Mic. 7:18–19). For that matter, the Lord’s Supper perpetually reminds the church today of her sin, for which she must constantly mourn, confess, and ask forgiveness (Matt. 5:3–6; 1Cor. 11:27–32; 1John 1:8–10).
Unwilling to leave a single stone unturned in his attempt to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his readers that the Levitical rituals are an insubstantial foundation on which to rest one’s hope of salvation, the author launches into another argument that adds some new points and recapitulates others (10:5–18). The author understands Psalm 40:6–8, cited in verses 5–7, to be prophetic of Christ. The author takes the phrase “a body you prepared for me,” from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text, as referring to the body the Son of God assumed at his incarnation, the human nature in which he obeyed God and died in his people’s place (Heb. 2:14; 5:8; cf. John 6:38; Phil. 2:7–8). The citation is perfectly suited because it compares the Levitical sacrifices unfavorably with the work of Christ.
It was a truism of the Old Testament revelation that the Levitical ritual served no good purpose without faith and obedience on the part of the worshiper (10:8; 1Sam. 15:22; Ps. 51:16–19; Isa. 1:11–17; Amos 5:21–24). This is the simple meaning of David’s words in Psalm 40:6–8. Further, the faithful of the former era did offer such willing obedience, and their sacrifices were pleasing to God (Heb. 11:4; cf. Lev. 1:9). But the author is dealing with sacrifice or, as the four different terms indicate, the whole Levitical ritual in itself, which obviously had no intrinsic power to save from sin. The individual to whom the author is addressing himself is not the person whose sacrificial worship merely gives expression to his trust in God the Redeemer and to the glad consecration of his life to God, but the one who hopes that the act of sacrifice itself will cleanse him of guilt. But Christ and his sacrifice have just that saving efficacy in themselves that the Levitical ritual lacks (10:9–10). The contrast drawn between the alternatives of the psalm citation is intended to nullify any idea that the sacrificial ritual could ever be the substance of salvation. This holiness or perfection has both present and future aspects (6:1; 10:14; 12:23).
The point made earlier (10:1–4) is recapitulated in verses 11–14. The ineffectuality of sacrifices that must be performed repeatedly is contrasted with the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, the effectuality of which is attested by the singular honor of a place at God’s right hand. The priests continue to stand (cf. Deut. 10:8; Ps. 134:1); the great High Priest has sat, a sign both of the ultimacy of his single sacrifice for sin (Heb. 1:3–4; 2:9) and of his royal dominion, now hidden but soon to be revealed (Heb. 1:13; 2:7–8). It is to Christ, therefore, not to Levitical priests and rituals, that sinners must come. In nonconformist Judaism of the Essene variety, likely the form of Judaism exerting the greatest influence on this community, there was an expectation of the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood, but it was never imagined that this would involve anything other than standing priests offering sacrifices repeatedly.
In verses 15–18 the author returns to the citation from Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. Heb. 8:8–12) for the dramatic conclusion to his great demonstration begun at 4:14 of the superiority of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice. The true salvation in Christ that God promises and applies to the hearts of those he calls eventuates in a full and permanent absolution. Looking to some regularly repeated sacrificial ritual as the basis of forgiveness, as his readership is tempted to do, amounts to a repudiation of the glorious gospel of salvation by the grace of God (Heb. 13:9).
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
The Ineffectiveness of the Law
The argument of the preceding two chapters is restated in this section (10:1–18), bringing the central argument of the epistle, namely, the imperfection of the old order and the perfection of the new, to a conclusion. The only new material in this section is found in verses 5–10, where the author’s thesis finds further support in his exegesis of Psalm 40:6–8. All the other material is a restatement of earlier points. The entire central section is then effectively rounded out by the requotation of Jeremiah 31:33–34. First, however, the author focuses on the repetitious character of the levitical sacrifices, using this to further his argument by pointing to the intrinsic inadequacy implied by the necessity of repetition.
10:1 Since the law was only anticipatory of the good things that are coming, in itself it possesses no enduring or final significance. It is therefore but a shadow (cf. 8:5) of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves (cf. 8:5; 9:23–24). In this last phrase NIV paraphrases what is literally “not the very image of the things.” Since the author stresses the fulfillment that has already come in Christ and earlier refers to “the good things that are already here” (9:11), the future aspect in the word coming is to be understood from the perspective of the OT (thus NEB: “the good things which were to come”). Repeated endlessly is to be understood in the sense of “continually.” Year after year corresponds to “day after day” in 7:27 (cf. 9:25). By the same sacrifices of course is meant the same kind of sacrifices. The Greek text strongly asserts the impossibility (lit., “it is impossible”) that the law can make perfect those who draw near to offer sacrifices. Those who draw near refers to those who participate in the sacrifices. Our author has already stated that “the law made nothing perfect” (7:19). Here, as throughout the book, “perfection” entails arrival at the goal of God’s saving purposes. By their very nature, the sacrifices of the old covenant were unable to bring humanity to the full salvation God intended. This fulfillment depends upon that toward which those sacrifices pointed.
10:2–3 The author asks the logical question: Would not the sacrifices have ceased if the people had been cleansed in a final and complete way? Does not the repetition of the sacrifices itself point to their inadequacy? Once for all echoes the fully and finally sufficient character of Christ’s sacrifice, repeatedly stressed in the epistle. The idea of cleansed refers to the removal of sins from the conscience (expressed by NIV in the words no longer have felt guilty). For similar statements about the perfecting or cleansing of the conscience, see 9:9, 14. What is in view here, in contrast to the external cleansing of the old covenant, is the new, inner level of cleansing made possible by the era of fulfillment brought by Christ. Where that occurs no further need for the offering of sacrifices exists (cf. 10:17–18). Indeed, the continuing of the sacrifices on an annual basis (cf. v. 1) is a reminder of the continuing problem of their sins.
10:4 The author returns to a fundamental point in his argument and the ground for his assertions in the preceding two verses. The words because it is impossible … are quite emphatic: cleansing of a kind can be accomplished by the blood of animals (9:13, 22), but cleansing that results in the taking away of sins is beyond the power of such blood. Only the blood of Christ is sufficient for this task (9:14, 25–26).
Additional Notes
10:1 For shadow, see note to 8:5 (cf. Col. 2:17). There are two textual problems in this verse. The earliest manuscript of Hebrews (P46) reads “and the image” for “not the very image,” thus affirming that the law is (only) the “image” of the good things to come. But both the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the word “image” (eikōn) argue against this reading. Eikōn is a manifestation of the reality (it is used of Christ in 2 Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15) and stands in contrast to the shadow rather than being essentially synonymous with it. See Metzger TCGNT, p. 669. The second variant involves the verb “is impossible” for which some understood a plural subject (i.e., the sacrifices). The correct subject grammatically, however, is “the law,” and therefore the singular form is to be preferred. The Greek word translated realities (pragma) occurs elsewhere in Hebrews only in 6:18 and 11:1. See C. Maurer, TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 638f. For sacrifices (thysia) and repeated (lit., “offered” [prospherō]), see note on 5:1. The Greek underlying endlessly is eis to diēnekes; for the translation “continually,” see BAGD, p. 195. Who draw near (proserchomai) is again language of the cultus. See note on 4:16. On the important word make perfect (teleioō), see note on 2:10.
10:2–3 The “conscience” of the worshiper is frequently in our author’s mind. See note on 9:9. The Greek word underlying NIV’s worshipers (latreuō) connotes those who serve in the cultus. See comment, p. 117. For the importance of once for all (here, hapax), see note on 7:27. The verb cleansed is in the perfect tense, suggesting cleansing in the past with results lasting into the present. On the verb here, katharizō, which again has a cultic meaning, see note on 9:23. Behind NIV’s reminder is the noun “remembrance” (anamnēsis), a word occurring in Hebrews only here. The somewhat ambiguous Greek, which does not spell out who is reminded, implies “the people” (in keeping with the consciousness of sin mentioned in v. 2).
10:4 A tradition about the inefficacy of sacrifices had already emerged in the OT Scriptures. One of these passages, indeed, is about to be quoted (see v. 6). In addition to Ps. 40:6, see Ps. 51:16; 1 Sam. 15:22, and the following passages from the Prophets: Isa. 1:11; Hos. 6:6; Amos 5:21–22; Mic. 6:6–8 (cf., also, Jesus’ use of this perspective in Matt. 9:13; Mark 12:33). Thus the readers would have been familiar with this polemic, although not with the way in which our author utilizes it. Judaism, after the fall of Jerusalem, was able on the basis of this polemic to assert the reality of forgiveness without animal sacrifices. For our author, however, it is the blood of Christ that obviates the need for the blood of animals and answers its final inadequacy. On the phrase the blood of bulls and goats, see 9:12, 13, 19.
Old and New in Psalm 40:6–8
In this section we encounter another brilliant example of the author’s christological exegesis of the OT. As he likes so much to do (cf. 2:6–9; 3:7–4:10), he first cites the OT text and then presents a midrash, or running commentary, on the passage, by which he supports the argument he is pursuing. In this instance that argument involves the transitory character of the levitical sacrifices and the permanent character of what Christ has done. The author has found an ideal text for his purposes. With Christ as his hermeneutical key, he expounds the deeper meaning of the text, which can now be seen retrospectively in a new way through the fulfillment brought by Christ.
10:5–7 Although not stipulated in the original text, NIV is correct in adding Christ. It is clear from the quotation and what follows that our author here understands Christ to be speaking to God. Came (lit., “coming”) into the world indicates that from the author’s perspective it is the preexistent Christ who speaks through the psalmist. The quotation is from Psalm 40:6–8 and follows the LXX closely. An important difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text of Psalm 40:6, however, is LXX’s a body you prepared for me for “my ears you have pierced” (lit., “ears you have dug [opened] for me”). The LXX translator apparently understood an allusion to the creation of Adam in the words “ears you have dug for me,” for in the sculpting of a body from clay, ears must be dug out. Thus he translated the expression from Hebrew idiom into language that would more readily be understood in the Hellenistic world: a body you prepared for me.
Burnt offerings is lit., “whole burnt offerings.” I have come to do your will is an appropriate statement given the fact that the Messiah was regularly described as “the coming one” (cf. the opening words of v. 5; John 6:14; 11:27). The scroll is literally “the roll of the book” (cf. Ezek. 2:9, LXX).
The meaning of the psalm passage in its own historical context seems clear. A pious Israelite, perhaps David or a Davidic king, stresses that what concerned God is not sacrifices but obedience. God has given ears to hear and to obey. Thus the psalmist goes on to say, “I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart” (cf. Jer. 31:33). From his christocentric perspective the author understands Christ to be the speaker of these words. In addition to the actual content of the present passage, he may have thought of the psalm as messianic because of its Davidic associations and also because of certain of its phrases, for example, “a new song in my mouth” (v. 3), and “your faithfulness and salvation” (v. 10; cf. v. 16). In the writer’s exegesis of the passage in the following verses, it becomes clear how appropriately it can be applied to Christ and his work. For our author, Christ is the goal of the OT Scriptures; the fulfillment brought by him is the justification for christological interpretation of the OT.
10:8 The midrashic commentary on the psalm text begins with a requotation of the opening (first, lit., “earlier”) sentences, telescoping them into one sentence and omitting the clause about the preparation of a body. The author adds the reminder that these sacrifices were divinely ordained: the law required them to be made. Nevertheless, they are not what God ultimately requires. The OT itself thus recognizes the inadequacy of the levitical sacrifices, though not in the sense that our author does, despite the fact that it contains the Mosaic legislation that requires those sacrifices.
10:9–10 In contrast to animal sacrifices is the obedience of Christ. Again, the original citation is quoted: Then he said, Here I am, I have come to do your will. That the obedience of Christ to the will of God (cf. Matt. 26:39, 42; John 6:38) entails his own self-sacrifice has already been established by the author (most recently in 9:28). It is asserted again in verse 10 but only implied in verse 9. He sets aside the first to establish the second: the reference to abolishing the first to establish the second is very reminiscent of 7:12, 18–19, and 8:7, 13, where it is said that the former commandments and covenant must give way to the new. Here it is the sacrifices of animals that must give way to the sacrifice of Christ in obedience to God’s will. The will of God referred to in the original quotation (and in its recurrence in v. 9) is identified at the beginning of verse 10 as that by which we have been made holy.
In by that will, the last word is the first of three deliberate allusions (in v. 10) in midrashic fashion to the psalm quotation of vv. 5–7. The second word drawn from the original quotation is sacrifice. The sacrifice that is acceptable to God because it fulfills his will is of the body of Jesus Christ. It is in the word body that we have the third allusion to the original quotation. This reference to the body of Jesus calls to mind the emphasis in chapter 2 upon the “flesh and blood” he shared so that “he might taste death for everyone” and that “by his death he might destroy … the devil” (2:9, 14). According to the author, the humanity of Jesus had as its purpose his atoning death, the sacrifice of his body. It was this that occurred once for all. This one sacrifice is the counterpart to, and fulfills altogether, the entire catalogue of animal sacrifices rejected in Psalm 40:6–7. For it is Jesus who has come to do the will of God, and in agreement with the teaching of the Scriptures: “it is written about me in the scroll.” All of the OT in one way or another points to or prepares for the fulfillment of God’s saving purposes accomplished through Christ.
Additional Notes
10:5–7 The content of the psalm quotation as elucidated by the author shows how appropriately it can be said to refer to the one “coming into the world” in order to accomplish God’s saving will. On “the coming one” as a messianic title, to which the present passage may well allude, see J. Schneider, TDNT, vol. 2, p. 670. It has been suggested by some that the word body (sōma) in the LXX was caused by a scribe’s misreading of the word “ears,” which in Greek would only have involved (apart from the dropping of the initial sigma, perhaps owing to the ending of the preceding word with the same letter) mistaking the letters TI for M (thus ōtia for sōma). Despite this interesting conjecture, however, it is more probable that a body you prepared for me was a deliberate re-expression of the Hebrew original. Since a few later witnesses to the text of the LXX contain the word for “ears” rather than body (as the major witnesses have it), it is probably to be explained as an attempt to bring about conformity with the Hebrew text. (The LXX otherwise follows the Hebrew text closely.) Our author’s quotation of the LXX is also quite accurate. He does replace “you have not asked” (aiteō) with you were not pleased (eudokeō; cf. Ps. 51:16), thus sharpening the contrast with the good pleasure of his actual will. He also omits the LXX’s verb “I delight” to do your will.
Four different words or phrases are used by the psalmist in referring to sacrifices. These are apparently meant to represent comprehensively the various kinds of levitical sacrifices. Thus the word for sacrifice (thysia), though it may describe sacrifices generally (as it does in 5:1; 7:27; 8:3; 9:9, etc.), here as in the OT probably indicates the peace offering. See C. Brown, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 416–38. Offering (prosphora), which also can have a general sense, in the levitical system means specifically “meal (or cereal) offering.” This word is used in Hebrews only in the present chapter (vv. 8, 10, 14, 18). See K. Weiss, TDNT, vol. 9, pp. 65–68. The third word means explicitly “whole burnt offerings” (holokautōma). In Hebrews the word occurs again only in the requotation of the line from the psalm in v. 8 (and elsewhere in the NT only in Mark 12:33). Sin offerings (peri hamartias, lit., “[those] concerning sins”) is a phrase used regularly in the LXX. This same phrase occurs in Hebrews in 5:3, vv. 8, 18, and 26 of the present chapter, and in 13:11 (see, too, Rom. 8:3). Thus as the psalmist attempted through his vocabulary to contrast the importance of obedience with the entire range of levitical sacrifices, so also our author must have been pleased to use this passage to contrast the entire catalogue of such sacrifices (note his repetition of it in v. 8) with the obedience of Christ and his final and definitive sacrifice. On the terminology of sacrifice, see C. Brown, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 418–38.
10:8 On the categories of sacrifices, see preceding note. The expression the law required (lit., “according to the law”) occurs in Hebrews also in 7:5, 16; 8:4; 9:19, 22. In most of these instances, as here, there is the consciousness that what the law stipulated was only of a temporary character. Now that Christ has brought fulfillment of the promises, the law is no longer binding. This is stated forcefully and explicitly in v. 9.
10:9–10 The verb translated sets aside (anaireō) is a strong one, meaning to “abolish” or “destroy” (in Hebrews the word occurs only here). See BAGD, p. 54. Such strong language is in keeping with our author’s perspective on the Mosaic law, given the inauguration of the new covenant in Christ. The point of the present passage and others like it is that the OT had itself spoken of the fact that the sacrifice of animals was not a matter of ultimate significance. God required and had something in mind far greater than animal sacrifices, namely, the obedient sacrifice of Christ. And as he abolishes the one, so he “establishes” (histēmi) the other (used in this sense only here in Hebrews). See BAGD, p. 382. The word “will” (thelēma) drawn from the original quotation occurs only in the present passage in reference to Christ’s obedience. It is found, however, in 10:36 and 13:21, where Christians are called to obey the will of God. Have been made holy translates the verb hagiazō, lit., “sanctify.” See note on 2:11. Our being cleansed from sin is again shown to be directly dependent on Christ’s sacrifice, i.e., through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ. The word body (sōma) is only used in the present passage in connection with Christ’s sacrifice (but cf. 1 Pet. 2:24 and the implication in 13:11f.). The offering of the body is simply another way of referring to sacrifice. Cf. Eph. 5:2: “just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” On “body” see S. Wibbing, NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 232–38. A final point to note in the present passage is the placement of the Greek word ephapax, once for all, at the end of the sentence. This adds emphasis to the finality of Christ’s sacrifice. For ephapax, see note on 7:27.
The Perfect Offering and the Fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31–34
We now come to the final, climactic section of the central argument in the epistle. Yet again the author asserts the definitive character, and hence the finality, of Christ’s sacrifice. In the early stages of this central argument Jeremiah 31:31–34 was quoted (in 8:8–12). Now as the argument is brought to a conclusion, the author returns to that passage, quoting again words from verses 33 and 34. He also makes use of a favorite text, Psalm 110:1, in this passage. In the last sentence it is pointed out that where the promise of Jeremiah has been fulfilled, the sacrificial system is necessarily at an end.
10:11 Once again the repetitious character of the levitical priestly duties is stressed (cf. 7:27; 9:25; 10:1, 3). Day after day (cf. Exod. 29:38) every priest stands and performs his religious duties. The very posture of standing suggests the ever-unfinished task performed by the priests, especially when in the next verse it is stressed that having accomplished his task of atonement, Christ “sat down” at God’s right hand. The irony of the situation of the levitical priests is that these repeated sacrifices, by their very nature, can never take away sins (cf. v. 1 and 9:9). Such sacrifices are thus self-condemned.
10:12–13 The expected contrast, involving the single, sufficient sacrifice of Christ is now set forth (cf. 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10). The one sacrifice for sins offered by this priest (lit., “this one”) is described with the word for all time. Psalm 110:1, one of the main OT texts employed in the book, is now again cited (cf. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 12:2). On this occasion, the author divides the quotation in order to indicate more effectively what has been accomplished and what yet remains to occur. What is now true is that Christ, having accomplished his priestly mission on earth, reigns as king at the right hand of the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 15:25). The second part of the quotation (v. 13) begins with since that time. What remains is the final vindication of Christ wherein his enemies are fully and finally subjected to him (cf. 9:28). This motif will become an important basis for exhortation in succeeding sections of the epistle (cf. vv. 25, 27, 35, 39; 12:28f.). The point here, however, is that Christ’s atoning work is complete, as the following verse now emphasizes.
10:14 The efficacy of Christ’s single sacrifice is such that he has made perfect forever those who are sanctified by his work. As throughout the epistle, the word perfect is not to be understood as moral perfection, but as the complete realization of God’s saving purpose. To arrive at this one sacrifice (cf. v. 12) and to experience its benefits are to arrive at the goal anticipated from the beginning of God’s gracious activity among his people. As this sacrifice has a teleological character, so those who are being made holy by it have (cf. the cleansing of the conscience in 9:14) arrived at the fullness of salvation, the telos, promised and foreshadowed by all that preceded in the old covenant. It is for this reason that the results of this sacrifice last forever (cf. 7:25; 9:12, “eternal redemption”), in contrast to the temporary effects of the levitical sacrifices.
10:15–17 Returning now to one of his key texts (Jer. 31:33–34), the author asserts that what he has argued is in precise accord with Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the new covenant. The Holy Spirit is regarded as the ultimate inspiration of the prophet Jeremiah’s words; thus the Spirit bears witness through what he wrote (cf. 3:7; 9:8; 8:8). The quotation is given in two parts: the first predicts the reality of the new covenant positively, whereas the second (v. 17) refers to the blotting out of sins (with the strongest negatives, lit., “I will in no wise remember”). The effect is, on the one hand, to underline the promise of the new covenant with its internal dimension, and on the other, to point out the close interconnection between this promise and the experience of a new level of forgiveness. This is what has come about through the sacrifice of Christ.
10:18 “But” (the word underlying NIV’s translation and) where such promised things as these have become a reality, only one conclusion about the old system of sacrifices is possible. And thus climactically the author asserts that there is no longer any need for further sacrifices for sins. Fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise has come. Christ’s sacrifice is the definitive, final, and fully efficacious answer to the universal problem of human sin.
Additional Notes
10:11 A few important witnesses have “high priest” for priest, probably influenced by the similar verse in 7:27. The phrase day after day (kath’ hēmeran) is found also in 7:27 (cf. 8:13). Underlying “doing priestly service” is the verb leitourgeō, which is found only here in Hebrews (but cognate nouns are found in 8:2, 6 and 9:21). See note on 8:6. The perfect tense of stands and the present participle “doing priestly service” may point again to the existence of the temple and its sacrificial ritual at the time the epistle was written. For a contrasting use of again and again (pollakis), see 9:25f. On offers (prospherō) and sacrifices (thysia), see note to 5:1. The verb for take away (periaireō) occurs only here in Hebrews (elsewhere in the NT epistles it is found in 2 Cor. 3:16).
10:12–13 The use of the aorist participle (“having offered”) is significant, for it indicates action accomplished prior to the action of the main verb, he sat down. The point is clear: Christ’s sacrificial work, his one sacrifice for sins, was sufficient and complete. The fact that he is finished with that work is underlined by the reference to his sitting down at God’s right hand. The reference to one sacrifice (thysia; see note on 7:27) is paralleled by the one sacrifice (lit., “offering”) in v. 14. In the Greek text the phrase translated for all time (eis to diēnekes) can be understood to refer to Christ’s offering or to his sitting at God’s right hand. NIV’s interpretation is probably correct since it is more in keeping with what is argued by the author elsewhere (cf. the same phrase for forever in v. 14 in reference to the results of Christ’s sacrifice). For the role of Ps. 110:1 in Hebrews, see note on 1:3. He waits for his enemies to be made his footstool is a good example of the Hebraic “divine passive”—a passive verb where God is understood to be the acting subject (thus “God will make his enemies his footstool”). The reality of a final victory fully realized is assumed because God is the agent who will bring it to pass.
10:14 For sacrifice (“offering,” prosphora), see note on 10:5. On the important verb made perfect (teleioō), see note to 2:10. On made holy (hagiazō), see note to 2:11.
10:15–17 For the Holy Spirit as the speaker in OT Scripture, see note on 3:7. The first part of the quotation is introduced with first he says (lit., “after saying”), but the second lacks any introduction, unless the opening “and” (kai) of v. 17 functions this way (NIV adds then he adds). The author makes only slight changes from the original quotation of this material in 8:10–11. He substitutes with them for “with the house of Israel”; transposes the clauses about minds and hearts; and moves from there directly to the promise of the forgiveness, using two words sins and lawless acts (the latter, anomia, is probably written by the author on the analogy of the word translated sins, adikia, in 8:12).
10:18 Forgiveness of sins in the sense that Jeremiah prophesied it means that an offering or sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary. For sacrifice (prospherō), see note on 10:5. The word for “forgiveness” (aphesis) occurs in Hebrews only here and in 9:22. See R. Bultmann, TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 509–12.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Donald A. Hagner, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:34), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.
The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).
Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).
The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).
During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).
Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).
The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.
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.
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 (2:15). 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).
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).
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 the 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 (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (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).
An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:12; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).
A pact/compact or an agreement (Heb. berit). The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.”
The covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships.
Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship.
The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:89. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land.
Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally, the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath, judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1Cor. 11:25; 2Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2Cor. 3:6).
There are seven references in the OT to “footstool,” only one of which is literal (2Chron. 9:18); the other six are variously figurative. In 1Chron. 28:2 the ark of the covenant is apparently referred to as God’s footstool (though this imagery clashes somewhat with other texts that seem to regard the ark as the seat of his throne). Psalm 99:5 commands worship at God’s footstool, perhaps referring to the temple (so also Ps. 132:7; Lam. 2:1). In Isa. 66:1 God declares that the earth is his footstool (seeing the universe as his temple). In Ps. 110:1 God tells the anointed king that he will make his enemies “a footstool for your feet.” Paintings from ancient Egypt depict Pharaoh’s footstool adorned with carvings of conquered enemies, and correspondence from both Egypt and Mesopotamia indicates that vassals referred to themselves as the king’s footstool.
In the NT, all the references to “footstool” are quotations of, or allusions to, the aforementioned OT passages (Matt. 5:35; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; 7:49; Heb. 1:13; 10:13).
Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.
Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).
Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.
Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.
Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1124). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but, because of God’s nature and mercy, sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.
Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.
Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.
The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).
It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.
Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.
Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).
With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).
God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).
A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).
While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.
The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).
The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).
God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.
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.
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. 3:1315). 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.
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.”
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 (2Sam. 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; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor. 3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 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).
In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 1923) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.
More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.
The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1 17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.
1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.
2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group.
4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.
Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John 2:2).
A word used in the KJV to describe the removal of the guilt or penalty of sin acquired through belief in Christ (Acts 10:43) and effected through his shed blood (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22), bringing about salvation (Luke 1:77).
References to “books” in biblical narratives are more properly said to indicate scrolls—that is, book rolls—made from papyrus, tanned hides of sheep and goats (as were most of the DSS), or parchment (hides with the hair removed and rubbed clean) (2Tim. 4:13). They were unrolled for reading (Luke 4:17, 20) and could be secured with a wax seal (Rev. 5:1). The physical limitations of scroll length probably affected the size of biblical books. Almost invariably, only one side was written on, which makes Ezek. 2:910 and Rev. 5:1 exceptional.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.
In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness.... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
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.
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 (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).
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. 8:2833; 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; 1Cor. 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” (1Thess. 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.
The English term “witness” occurs in both Testaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One common meaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to the legitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:1516, 18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occurs primarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especially God—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensic dimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g., Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).
Central to the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. This was a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legal proceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimony against anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was so significant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).
Truth-telling was not something that the people of Israel were called to merely among themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to the nations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence and holiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod. 19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israel failed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind” (Isa. 42:19).
The NT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’s witnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testify concerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context that Jesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designated as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then called to bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
“Witness” is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one has seen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legal testimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replace Judas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close of the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern for witnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundred others, and himself as among those who have witnessed the resurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).
Throughout Revelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearing witness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of this witness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred, and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev. 2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, who explicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and are eventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they have finished “their testimony” (11:7).
It is this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads to the second-century employment of “martyr” as a designation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point of death.
Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.
The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.
A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).
God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:118) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).
Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).
Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.
Direct Matches
The English word “atonement” comes from anAnglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”;thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In someways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliationthan our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness”as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity isachieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongsdone. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achievedthis “onement” between God and sinful humanity.
Theneed for atonement comes from the separation that has come aboutbetween God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there isthe understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatureson 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 effectreconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’sholiness and justice.
OldTestament
Inthe OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins wereatoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, andan amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrificewas reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given themthe blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement foryourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement forone’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basicoperating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of theblood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer.However, there have been significant scholarly debates regardingwhether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understandingof atonement.
Themeaning of “to atone.”First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrewword kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popularsuggestions 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 ornothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purifythe tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impuritiesthat attach to them on account of the community’s sin. Thistheory, though most probably correct in what it affirms,unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacleand furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mentionatonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev.8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts inLeviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer(e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sinfor the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning ofkapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meaningsoverlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in somepassages, and another one in others.
Therehas also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying ahand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2).This has traditionally been understood as an identification of theofferer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’ssins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and theargument made instead that it only signifies that the animal doesindeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offerit. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seenas complementary to what has traditionally been understood by thisgesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when thepriest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sinand wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on thegoat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm thecorrectness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thusbest seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; itdies in his stead.
Therelationship 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 therelationship between God and the offerer. The question here iswhether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offeringexpiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does itpropitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does itappease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath isremoved? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seemslogical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On theother hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possiblybe a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there arecertainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passageswhere 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 ofatonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.
Inconjunction with this last point, it is also important to note thatthere are a number of places where it is said that God does thekapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept thisatonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 Godwill “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 yourname’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as“ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egyptfor your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will“make atonement” for all the sins that Israel hascommitted. 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 istaking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins ofthe people. It is important to remember God’s declaration inLev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of thesacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, nomatter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that Godgraciously grants to his covenant people.
Thatleads 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 forour iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him theiniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet itwas 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 issueswith regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song”(as it is often called), one of them being whether the termtranslated “guilt offering” should really be thought ofalong the lines of the guilt offering described in the book ofLeviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditionalChristian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here apicture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning forthe sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on hisservant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to beGod’s very own son, Christ Jesus.
NewTestament
Therelationship between the Testaments.When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should bemade.
First,God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NTconsideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinfuland unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess JesusChrist as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is themeans of averting this wrath.
Second,salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in ChristJesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the sametime, 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 hisown justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God isboth just and justifier.
Third,as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, soalso in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement.It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. IfJesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it isGod himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement”(Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that hegave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “senthis Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for usall” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not anunwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing ofatonement 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 necessaryatonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goatsto take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).
Portrayalsof 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. Thisis understandable on one level, but on another level there issomething misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authorsspeak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear thatthey intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christreally 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 placedon the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection tothe 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 inthe OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the differentportrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some ofthese may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while othersperhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a“window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted thatthe individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in somecases they overlap.
• Ransom.Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransompaid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb.9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in thesepassages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption”in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same wordare 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 inRev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased”people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that ofslaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slavemarket. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic”view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for thepurchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense ofChrist’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom theransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those whoare ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to thelaw.
• Cursebearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the pictureof Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. Thelanguage is especially striking because rather than saying thatChrist bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.”This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully tookinto his own person the curse that was meant for us.
• Penaltybearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayaldepicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of oursins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, becauseChrist has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous andno longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much ofthe argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it alsointersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of thispicture 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 understoodby Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “thejust for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as wellas in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sinfor us” so that we might become the “righteousness ofGod.”
• Propitiation.There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or“atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greekverb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. Thisis the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrewverb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about theprecise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, asto whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”)or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avertwrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of“propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is impliedin expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account ofour sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although thespecific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in thosepassages where it is said either that Christ died “for oursins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins”(Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or thathis 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 nottraditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though manyscholars would argue that it was), at the very least we shouldrecognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use ofthe Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. TheGospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in theGospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account ofJesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion wasprecisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John19:14).
• Sacrifice.This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above,but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept inthe NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ isportrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers thesacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). Hecame, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of thesacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, finalsacrifice” within that system, “that he might makeatonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).
Ofcourse, it is not just the death of Christ that secures ourredemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection andheavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regardto the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life,his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him tobe the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration ofGod’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “wasraised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it wasparticularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.
The human body has its origin in the act of creation by Goddepicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “verygood” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation(1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, incontrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as aprison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage.This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of humansexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriagerelationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of theman and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where wefind a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16)and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).
OldTestament.In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body tothe dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3).The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of properburial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a healthregulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on thebodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberatedesecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving anenemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring ofproper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, asexemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.
TheHebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be usedof a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), thoughthis word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”).This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/bodydistinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body”(whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body,not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within anoverall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “thefruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf.Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to amale body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).
NewTestament.Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), andthe Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements ofdrink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny thatJesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart ofthe gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3).For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himselfbody and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At theLast Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt.26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, whichwould be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possiblethe inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).
Thebodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers(e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor.15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine andgospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they toowill be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52),a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bibleembraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physicalcreation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will beraised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess.4:13–18).
Inwhat is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor.5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death hewill not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothedwith [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “awayfrom the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication ofbodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home withthe Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leavingthis earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies(e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable”and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (thoughgloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication isprovided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, whichcould pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7),appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingestfood and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).
Paulmade use the “body” analogy for the character of thechurch as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26),viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependentmembers or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correctthe self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual giftsin the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christiancommunity as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showedthat their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at theirsuppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says thatthe believer’s “body” is united to Christ, makingsexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believersare to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used alittle differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18,24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of thebody (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction andrule. Believers are to present their “bodies” as aliving sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom.12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to theequation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind togethermake up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. Seealso Gestures.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
There are seven references in the OT to “footstool,”only one of which is literal (2Chron. 9:18); the other six arevariously figurative. In 1Chron. 28:2 the ark of the covenantis apparently referred to as God’s footstool (though thisimagery clashes somewhat with other texts that seem to regard the arkas the seat of his throne). Psalm 99:5 commands worship at God’sfootstool, perhaps referring to the temple (so also Ps. 132:7; Lam.2:1). In Isa. 66:1 God declares that the earth is his footstool(seeing the universe as his temple). In Ps. 110:1 God tells theanointed king that he will make his enemies “a footstool foryour feet.” Paintings from ancient Egypt depict Pharaoh’sfootstool adorned with carvings of conquered enemies, andcorrespondence from both Egypt and Mesopotamia indicates that vassalsreferred to themselves as the king’s footstool.
Inthe NT, all the references to “footstool” are quotationsof, or allusions to, the aforementioned OT passages (Matt. 5:35; Luke20:43; Acts 2:35; 7:49; Heb. 1:13; 10:13).
Contrary to common uses of the word “forgiveness,”which are highly influenced by modernity’s interest inpsychology, the biblical concept identifies forgiveness as atheological issue to be understood in relational categories.Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings(emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. Itis about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costlyand painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon”may prove more helpful.
Terminology
Principally,God forgives by removing the guilt from transgressors and therebyreleasing them from their deserved penalty. The OT term kipper speaksto the covering of sin (Deut. 21:8; Ps. 78:38; Jer. 18:23), and itsuse in connection with sacrifice signifies the idea of atonement.Like salakh, it communicates exclusively God’s forgiveness ofhumans (Num. 30:5; Amos 7:2). The term nasa’ refers to theremoval of guilt, God lifting the burden of sin from the sinner(Exod. 32:32; Num. 14:19), but it also can be used of forgivenessbetween humans (Gen. 50:17).
Inthe NT, verbs such as aphiēmi (noun aphesis) and apolyōconnote the idea of sending away or releasing, whereas (epi)kalyptōexpresses the idea of covering. Other terms, such as paresis(“passing over” [Rom. 3:25]) further extend the idea ofGod’s forgiveness: debt is canceled; God is exercising hisforbearing love. Paul’s preferred term is charizomai, whichunderscores the close correlation between grace and forgiveness (Rom.8:32; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).
God’sForgiveness
Forgivenessexpresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardonssinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, andexpress this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter ofa human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’sloving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arisingfrom their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether donedeliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationshipwith God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy(Eph. 2:1).
Underthe Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrathamong the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’sforgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance andsacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express truerepentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that couldpurchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3;Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free,undeserved gift.
Althoughthe sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed,through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognizeconditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship,the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness withoutconsideration of the offending party.
Jesusexpresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke15:11–24). The son rebels against his father, squanders hiswealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and lovingfather remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reuniondoes not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance;then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomeshim back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive ornot forgive, but sinners can rest assured of God’srelationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance.The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “asbefore” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point thatthe older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifiesreligious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.
HumanForgiveness
Thebiblical description of forgiveness between humans is rooted in thistheological understanding and articulates a clear analogy betweendivine and human forgiveness. Human relationship with God provides apattern for their relationship to each other (Matt. 5:23–24;6:12, 14–15). They forgive because they have been forgiven(Luke 7:41–47; Col. 3:13). If, or when, their forgiveness ofothers remains absent, it questions, or even jeopardizes, their ownrelationship with God (Matt. 18:22–35).
Again,since forgiveness is a theological matter, the one being wrongedremains obligated to work for the restoration of the relationshipeven if the wrongdoer does not repent. The one wronged should seek towin the offender back by showing mercy and eagerness to forgive aslearned from God (Rom. 12:19–20). There is no formula for thisGod-inspired forgiveness and no limit to its zeal. Jesus met Peter’ssuggestion that the offer of forgiveness could be exhausted with anunequivocal no (Matt. 18:21–22). The offended must offerforgiveness every time the wrongdoer asks for it (Luke 17:3–4).
Mostradical is the biblical mandate to forgive enemies. The OT oftenfollows the common ancient Near Eastern notion that enemies areexpressions of foreign deities, whom their own god(s) desires todestroy. It was therefore unimaginable that Israel (or Yahweh) shouldforgive a pagan god (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Jesus transforms thisthinking and makes forgiveness a Christian duty (Matt. 5:43–48;cf. Rom. 12:20).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit forassociation with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4).God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while“Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’sSpirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49),as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).
Withreference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like hisuniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory(Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is,his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).
God’sdwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy”functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly(11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels whosurround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).
Acorollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy(Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps.96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).
While“holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,”this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is anassociated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied topeople and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly orimplicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never“from” something.
Thesymbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, thetabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3),and everything associated with them, are holy and the means wherebyGod’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God.For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these toomust be holy (Lev. 11:44–45; Heb. 12:14).
TheOT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean andclean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting atransition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People,places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration orsanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence(Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).
Holinessmay be an attribute of places marked by God’s presence (Exod.3:5; Ps. 43:3). Likewise, particular times, especially the Sabbathday (Exod. 20:8), are declared holy.
God’sfaithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9).In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, andof particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10),prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7)are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tensionbetween the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holinessof its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended toact as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.
Theprophet Zechariah envisions a time when the distinctions between holyand common will be meaningless (Zech. 14:20–21). While vestigesof the symbolic language of holiness remain in the NT (e.g., the“holy city” in Matt. 27:53), after the death andresurrection of Christ the NT no longer operates with the symbolicholiness of the OT. Rather, this language is appropriated to explainwhat true holiness entails in the lives of God’s people (Rom.12:1; Eph. 2:21). All Christians are holy (“saints” [Gk.hagioi] means “holy ones” [e.g., Rom. 1:7]), including insome sense the members of a believer’s family (1Cor.7:14). The holiness of God’s people is both definitive, byvirtue of the saving work of Christ (Heb. 13:12), and progressive, byeliciting, and empowering through his Holy Spirit, holy and righteousliving (Rom. 6:19; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Both divine initiativeand human activity with regard to holiness may be seen in texts suchas Lev. 20:8; Heb. 10:14. The objective of Christian discipline isthat we might share God’s holiness (Heb. 12:10).
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
“Lawless” and “lawlessness” areEnglish renderings of the Greek noun anomia, which literally means“without law” (cf. anomos in 1Tim. 1:9) but oftenrefers more generally to sinfulness or wrongdoing of any kind (e.g.,Ps. 5:4 [5:5 LXX]; Matt. 7:23; Heb. 10:17; 1John 3:4). Paulspeaks about a man who so personifies evil that he can be called the“man of lawlessness” (2Thess. 2:3–10). The“secret power of lawlessness” is already at work and willmanifest itself in the appearance of this man, the antichrist(2Thess. 2:7). Some Bible versions (e.g., NIV, NRSV) also use“lawless” to translate the Greek adjective athesmos(2Pet. 2:7; 3:17; also 3Macc. 5:12 LXX). This word, whichoccurs much less often in the Bible than anomia, is translated as“unprincipled” in the NASB.
“Lawless” and “lawlessness” areEnglish renderings of the Greek noun anomia, which literally means“without law” (cf. anomos in 1Tim. 1:9) but oftenrefers more generally to sinfulness or wrongdoing of any kind (e.g.,Ps. 5:4 [5:5 LXX]; Matt. 7:23; Heb. 10:17; 1John 3:4). Paulspeaks about a man who so personifies evil that he can be called the“man of lawlessness” (2Thess. 2:3–10). The“secret power of lawlessness” is already at work and willmanifest itself in the appearance of this man, the antichrist(2Thess. 2:7). Some Bible versions (e.g., NIV, NRSV) also use“lawless” to translate the Greek adjective athesmos(2Pet. 2:7; 3:17; also 3Macc. 5:12 LXX). This word, whichoccurs much less often in the Bible than anomia, is translated as“unprincipled” in the NASB.
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
A shadow may refer to shade generally, darkness, or to aspecific shadow cast by something; “shadow” and “shade”also have other uses by extension. Perhaps because shade is aprotection from the heat of the sun, shade and shadow are metaphorsfor protection (Pss. 91:1; 121:5; Isa. 49:2), as in the phrase“shadow of [God’s] wings” (Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1;63:7). Since shadows change through the day and pass away, shadowbecomes a metaphor for brevity, particularly the brevity of life(1Chron. 29:15; Job 8:9; 14:2; Pss. 102:11; 109:23; 144:4), andfor change (James 1:17 [though this text has other interpretations]).As darkness, shadow sometimes refers to a place to hide (Job 34:22)or to gloom or danger (Pss. 44:19; 107:10, 14; Isa. 9:2; Jer. 2:6).The “land of darkness and deep shadow” appears to be areference to death (Job 10:21 ESV, NASB). And since a shadow’sshape resembles the outline of what casts the shadow, shadow mayrefer to that similarity as a copy, however imperfect (Col. 2:17;Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
Twomiracles involved shadows. God gave Hezekiah a miraculous sign bymoving the shadow on the steps backward (2Kings 20:9–11).As people believed the apostles’ message, they brought the sickto Solomon’s Colonnade, where they were healed when Peter’sshadow fell on them (Acts 5:12–16).
TheHebrew word for “deep darkness,” tsalmawet,was seen as two words by LXX translators and rendered as “shadowof death” (skia thanatou). This wording came into the NT as aquotation or allusion (Matt. 4:16; Luke 1:79). Texts discovered fromaround the time of the judges in Ugaritic, a language closely relatedto Hebrew, have shown that tsalmawet is one word, meaning “deepdarkness” or “gloom.” Modern translations havetended to change the rendering of this word, but some may leave“shadow of death” in Ps. 23:4 because of the popularityof this traditional wording.
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
Exodus 1:16 refers to a “delivery stool” (NIV), atranslation of the Hebrew ’obnayim.This may refer to an object or an arrangement of stones or blocks setside by side on which a woman sat to give birth. The same Hebrew wordin Jer. 18:3 refers to a potter’s wheel. The “footstool”is associated with thrones of ancient rulers and symbolized power orauthority (Isa. 66:1; Heb. 10:13). In 2Kings 4:10 the stool isa simple chair.
Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments.One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and thechurch were formed.
Terminology
Ourunderstanding of worship is informed by the terms, practices,exhortations, and warnings of Scripture. The worship vocabulary inboth Testaments provides insight into the personal dispositions andposture associated with worship focused on the person of God. Thefirst set of biblical terms concerns the posture of the worshiper.The Hebrew terminology communicates the idea of bowing down andfalling prostrate before the sovereign and worthy God (Ps. 95:6;1Chron. 29:20). NT words bear a similar idea of humbleacknowledgment of God’s authority with a reverent prostrateposition (Matt. 28:9; Rev. 5:14).
Thesecond set of worship terms concerns service. In the OT, the worshipof God includes the idea of serving with a view to bringing honor tohim (Exod. 3:12; Mal. 3:14, 18). In the NT, worship bears the nuanceof serving in the sense of carrying out religious duties (Heb.12:28). This set of terminology has a priestly connotation to it. TheOT priests and the NT believers (1Pet. 2:5) serve God withtheir individual lives and their routines of life as acceptableofferings.
Thefinal set of terms describes the attitude or disposition of worship.This word group includes terms such as “fear,” “awe,”and “dread,” which initially seem out of place in thecontext of worship. However, the terminology serves to inculcate anattitude of genuine respect. Yahweh is the awesome God, who is to befeared (Exod. 3:6; 15:11). Israel is to love and trust who God is andwhat God says in promise or in warning. The fear that one is to havefor God involves a respect for him, a reverence for his divine worth(Col. 3:22; Rev. 11:18).
Godas the Object of Worship
Theworship terminology sets the focus of worship. The living God is thesole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that hischildren find in him. The nature of worship is not about servantentertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgmentof God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.
Agenuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about ahumble response that affects one’s posture, generates works ofservice, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect.Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God isworshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps.90:1; 1Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is Godalone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, theself-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). Thepsalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good,loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).
Godis worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creativework of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focusin worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is thecompanion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive workof God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) andin the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).
Worshipis also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character.It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him(Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will becharacterized by humble submission to and worship of the King ofkings (1Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4).The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’sroyal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).
Finally,God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with thenation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize thevaried aspects of God’s character and his relationship withIsrael. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is tobe sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2Kings 17:35, 38; cf.Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character ofGod are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostratethemselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obedientlyserve.
TheForm of Worship
Althoughthe form of worship looks different in each Testament, the essentialelements of worship are constant. In the OT, the priests primarilyled the worship of God. In addition, the duties of the king (Deut.17:18–20) and of the prophet (18:14–22) had worshipimplications and responsibilities. Ideally, these threeadministrators were to work together to ensure a healthy quality ofcovenant life for the nation. Worship in both Testaments has bothcorporate and individual aspects.
OTworship was organized around sacred places such as designatedlocations (Gen. 3:8; 12:7), the tabernacle (Exod. 29:42), and thetemple (1Kings 8; cf. Rev. 21–22). In addition, therewere sacred times in the calendar of Israel for celebration of theappointed feasts (Lev. 23). The three main feasts in Israel’scalendar are Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16;cf. Exod. 34:23). The sacred actions of worship for the nationinvolved burnt offerings, meal or tribute offerings, peace offerings,sin offerings, and guilt offerings (Lev. 1–5).
Theregulation and routine of OT worship never were intended to be merelydutiful. The routine of worship was to manifest a love for God andfor the covenant community (Deut. 6:1–5; Mal. 2:10). Theprophets often challenged Israel to have a heart for God and at timescalled upon them to consider the emptiness of their worship routine(Isa. 1:11). The heart of worship was nurtured in psalms of praiseand lament and in the call to remember God (Pss. 42; 77:11).
Theform of NT worship is not distinguished with the same externals as inthe OT. However, similar core beliefs underlie the form and practiceof NT worship. The distinguishing feature in this new era is thefinal and sufficient work of Christ (Heb. 9–10). As withprevious revelation, worship is not anthropocentric; it is joyfullyChristocentric, based on the gospel (1Cor. 15:1–5).Christ and his work replace the OT temple. Jesus is the greatertemple that has come (Matt. 12:6). Sacrifice is no longer limited toany particular geographic location, but instead involves the offeringof oneself (Rom. 12:1–2) along with the presentation ofspiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1Pet. 2:4–5). NTworship is regulated by the Spirit and truth (John 4:20–24).This type of worship is distinguished by the word of God, the Spirit,preaching, prayer, Spirit-filled service, and mutual edification. NTworship also includes the regular celebration of the ordinances ofbaptism and the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42–47) within thecontext of the local church.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Hebrews 10:1-18
is mentioned in the definition.
Jeremiah is the second of the Major Prophets, after Isaiahand before Ezekiel, an order determined by the chronology of thebeginning of their prophetic work. Jeremiah and Ezekiel werebasically contemporaries, but the latter began his ministry afterJeremiah. The book of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets (21,835words), compared to Ezekiel (18,730 words) and Isaiah (16,932 words).Readers ancient and modern are attracted to the book not only by itsstirring message but also because Jeremiah is the most transparent ofall the prophetic personalities, often referred to as the WeepingProphet.
HistoricalBackground
Authorshipand date.The superscription of the book announces that it contains “thewords of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth inthe territory of Benjamin” (1:1). His prophetic ministry isthen described as taking place between the thirteenth year of KingJosiah and the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, equivalent to 626–586BC, a period of great turbulence (see next section). Chapters 40–44narrate events in the period immediately after the fall of Jerusalem.
Onthe one hand, there is no good reason to question the existence ofthe historical Jeremiah or the attribution to him of the prophecythat bears his name. On the other hand, the text indicates that thebook was not written at one sitting but rather is the product of aprocess. Chapter 36 mentions that the prophet wrote down his sermonsin 605 BC, and when King Jehoiakim burned the scroll, the narratorrelates that Jeremiah again dictated them to Baruch, who wrote themall down, and Jeremiah added many more oracles (36:32). The bookdescribes a close relationship between Jeremiah and his associateBaruch. It is possible that the stories about Jeremiah were writtendown and added by this close friend.
AncientNear Eastern historical context.When Jeremiah started his prophetic work in 626 BC, the world wasundergoing major political change. Assyria had been the dominantsuperpower for the preceding centuries. It had incorporated thenorthern kingdom of Israel into its vast empire in 722 BC, and Judahhad been forced to pay tribute. In 626 BC, however, Babylon began itsrebellion against Assyria. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, nowking of Babylon, threw off the yoke of Assyrian bondage, and overwhat was almost two decades he eradicated Assyria and inherited theempire.
In626 BC Josiah was king of Judah. His father, Amon, and hisgrandfather Manasseh had been evil kings, promoting false worship.But Josiah served Yahweh, and soon before Jeremiah began his work,the king began to purify the religious institutions of Judah(2Chron. 34:3b–7). Jeremiah’s early ministry thenoccurred in an environment that would find support from the royalcourt. In 609 BC, however, Josiah tried to block Necho of Egypt fromreinforcing the remnants of Assyria against Babylon and in theprocess lost his life. Although the Egyptians were unsuccessful inhelping Assyria survive, they were able to exercise control overJudah and placed a pro-Egyptian king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. Evenso, by 605 BC Egypt could not stop Babylon under their new king,Nebuchadnezzar, from demanding that Judah be their vassal (Dan.1:1–3). Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon in 597 BC. By thetime the avenging Babylonian army arrived, Jehoiakim was gone,replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The latter was promptly deported toBabylon and replaced by Zedekiah. The book of Jeremiah records thatboth Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were determined opponents of the prophet.In any case, Zedekiah too eventually rebelled against Babylon, andthis time Nebuchadnezzar not only captured and exiled many leadersbut also systematically destroyed the city. He then incorporatedJudah into his empire as a province and appointed a Judean governor,Gedaliah. Jeremiah 40–44 describes how Jewish insurgentsassassinated Gedaliah and killed off the Babylonian garrison troops.Many of the remaining Jewish people then fled to Egypt against God’swill as announced by Jeremiah, who was forced to go with them.
Theseevents provide the background to the prophetic oracles and theactions narrated in the book of Jeremiah. Some of Jeremiah’swords and actions are specifically dated to these events, whileothers are not dated.
Text
Jeremiahis one of the few books of the OT that present a significanttext-critical issue. The main Hebrew text (the MT) is clearlydifferent from the Greek text. The latter is about one-eighth shorterthan the former, lacking about 2,700 words. In addition, the order ofthe book is different. The oracles against the foreign nations arechapters 46–51 in the Hebrew but are found right after 25:13 inthe Greek. The DSS attest to early Hebrew manuscripts that reflectthe Greek tradition, and therefore we cannot attribute the differenceto translation error or intentional rearrangement. A better solutionis to remember that the book of Jeremiah as we know it in the Hebrewis the result of a long history of composition. The Greek text mayreflect an earlier shorter version. The longer Hebrew text thenrepresents the final authoritative edition of the book and is rightlyused for modern translations.
LiteraryTypes
Thebook as a whole is a compendium of prophetic oracles and storiesabout Jeremiah. The following distinct literary types are found inthe book.
Poeticalprophetic oracles of judgment and salvation.Chapters 2–25 are composed primarily of poetic oracles ofjudgment directed toward God’s people. They are God’swords to his people uttered by the prophet. Chapters 46–51 arealso judgment oracles, but these are directed toward foreign nationssuch as Egypt and Babylon. Although salvation oracles are found inthe first part of the book, chapters 30–31 form a strikingcollection of such oracles, the best known of which is theanticipation of the new covenant (31:31–34).
Poeticalconfessions/laments.Jeremiah’s confessions are in the form of laments in which hecomplains about the burdens brought on by his prophetic task. Theselaments have many similarities with laments in the psalms, includingelements such as an invocation, a declaration of innocence, aninvocation against enemies, and divine response. While the lamentshave a certain ritual form, there is no good reason to deny that theyauthentically represent the emotions of the prophet. Theconfessions/laments are found in 11:18–23; 12:1–6;15:15–21; 17:14–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–17.
Proseoracles.Jeremiah’s oracles come in the form of prose as well as poetry.Similarities have been drawn between these oracles (a good example is7:1–8:3) and the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Some wantto use this similarity to deny a connection with the historicalJeremiah, but there is no good reason to deny that Jeremiah couldreflect the theology of this foundational book.
Prosebiographical material.A significant part of the prose material may be described asbiographical, in that it relates events in Jeremiah’s life(chaps. 26–29; 34–45). These descriptions often carry aprophetic oracle. It is likely that these biographical descriptionswere written by someone other than Jeremiah (Baruch?).
Propheticsign-acts.Perhaps a special category of biographical material is thedescription of events and acts of Jeremiah’s that carryprophetic significance. A good example is 13:1–11, whichnarrates Jeremiah’s trip to the Euphrates River to bury hisdirty underwear.
Outline
I.Introduction and Jeremiah’s Call (1:1–19)
IIThe First Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry (2:1–25:14)
A Sermons, oracles, and sign-acts (2:1–24:10)
B Summary (25:1–14)
III.The Second Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry: Judgment and the Fallof Jerusalem (25:15–51:64)
A.Judgment against the nations (25:15–38)
B.Stories about Jeremiah and reports of oracles (26:1–29:32)
C.The Book of Consolation: Salvation oracles (30:1–33:26)
D.Stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment (34:1–38:28)
E.Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)
F.Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)
G.Oracles against foreign nations (46:1–51:64)
IV.Epilogue (52:1–34)
Structure
Thebook of Jeremiah does not have a clearly delineated structure. Inthis respect, Jeremiah is not unique among the prophets. Nonetheless,we may still make some general observations about the shape of thebook and its large sections, even though we cannot always account forwhy one oracle follows another. When they are given chronologicalindicators, they are not arranged sequentially.
Thereare reasons to think that chapter 25 plays a pivotal role in thebook, though it may be that this was more explicit in an earlier formof the book (when the oracles against the foreign nations followedimmediately after it; cf. the Greek version). Even so, 25:1–14summarizes the message of chapters 2–24, and then 25:15–38announces judgment against the nations. Chapter 1, then, is anintroduction to the book, with its account of the prophet’scommissioning, and chapter 52 is an epilogue describing the fall ofJerusalem.
Withinthese two large sections we can recognize blocks of material. Chapter1 introduces the prophet, recounts his call, and presents two undatedoracles that serve to introduce important themes of the book.
Chapters2–24 follow as a collection of sermons, poetic and proseoracles, and prophetic sign-acts that are undated. Indeed, it isoften difficult to tell when one oracle ends and another begins. Itis likely that these are the oracles that come from the first part ofthe prophet’s ministry, that is, his first scroll, described inchapter 36.
Afterchapter 25 summarizes the first part of the book and turns attentionto the judgment against the nations, a block of prose materialfollows consisting of stories about Jeremiah as well as reports oforacles (chaps. 26–29).
Chapters30–33 are a collection of salvation oracles, a break from theheavy barrage of judgment in the book up to this point.Traditionally, these chapters are known as the Book of Consolation.Chapters 30–31 are poetic oracles, while chapters 32–33are prose.
Chapters34–38 return to prose stories about Jeremiah and oracles ofjudgment. This section culminates with the first account of the fallof Jerusalem.
Thenext section, chapters 39–44, gives the distressing account ofthe exile and the continuing failures on the part of those who stayin the land with Jeremiah. They end up in Egypt because of their lackof confidence in God’s ability to take care of them. Chapter 45is an oracle directed toward Baruch, Jeremiah’s associate.
Thebook ends with a collection of oracles against foreign nations(chaps. 46–51), culminating with a lengthy prophetic statementdirected toward Babylon. The book concludes with a second account ofthe fall of Jerusalem.
TheologicalMessage
Jeremiahis a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas,however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant todescribe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is adivinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises andcalls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research hasfound that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept toancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers andthose of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful,sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompaniedby curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives areward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.
Thereis a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people(Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod.19–24]; David [2Sam. 7]), but most relevant for ourunderstanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed inDeuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26)and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).
Jeremiahand many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of thecovenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey thelaw. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and livein conformity with God’s will or else the curses of thecovenant will come into effect.
Jeremiah’soracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers,particularly in the matter of worshipping false gods (Jer. 10–11).The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the mostextreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that arerelated to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer.31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the oldcovenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense,and more intimate.
NewTestament Connections
Jeremiahanticipates the founding of a new and better covenant, and the NTwitnesses tothe fulfillment of this expectation. As he passedthe cup to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is thenewcovenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20[cf. 1Cor. 11:24–25]). The cup, representing Christ’sdeath, functions as the sign of the new covenant. The point is thatthe new covenant is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ.
Thenew covenant replaces the old. This is the argument of the book ofHebrews, which twice cites the relevant passage in Jeremiah to makethe point (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17; see also 2Cor.3). According to the author of Hebrews, the old covenant failed notbecause of a defect in God or his instrument but because of thepeople (Heb. 8:8). They consistently broke that covenant bydisobeying the law explicated in the covenant with Moses. As aresult, as Jeremiah himself announced, the people would be expelledfrom the land (reversing the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant),bringing to conclusion the monarchy, which is a provision of theDavidic covenant.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the bodyor items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body.For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures inrelation to the different body parts that are identified with thegestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line onclassifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described inProv. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signalswith his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclearwhether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether allsignify different things or the same thing.
Head
Gesturesthat relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolentacts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting ofone’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head inmourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery andderision (2Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult(Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).
Acommon action is the shaving of the head, which can be forpurification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all bodyhair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer.16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer.41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden fromshaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), whilethe high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificialduties (Exod. 29:6).
Anointingof the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7;Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing ona person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand onthe head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod.29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals isa symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24,29, 33; 8:18, 22).
Inthe OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut.21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be acause for disgrace (1Cor. 11:5–6).
Face.Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching orcovering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6)or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh.7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2Chron. 20:18; Ps.138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1Sam. 20:41;25:41; 28:14; 2Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1Kings 1:23;1Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod.3:6]).
Theface can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev.13:45), in grief/mourning (2Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), inresignation (1Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery(Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12).It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).
Godcan be described as hiding or turning away his face againstwickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer.33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholdingblessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8;59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment(Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of thePhilistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant,apparently overpowered by Yahweh.
Actsof humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num.12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face(1Kings 22:24; 2Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic.5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shamingjudgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone bythe nose (2Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek ishumiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the othercheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke6:29).
Onecan lift one’s face in worship (2Kings 20:2; Job 22:26;Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it inshame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards inmourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37),the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting(2Sam. 10:4; 1Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).
Eyes.Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act(Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship andexpectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).
Mouth.Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while ahand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5;40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the deserttribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” indefeat.
Ears.An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his orher earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut.15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear forpurification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), whilesupplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear(2Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifiespaying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20;5:13).
Neck.The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor(Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched inarrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns againstheaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put ayoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonianconquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in ayoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on theneck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation(Josh. 10:24).
Body
Nakednessin public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev.3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment(Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign ofpromiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a signof mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2Sam. 19:24). A certainkind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection(Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is anact of humiliation (2Sam. 4:12).
Chest.In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning(Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts ofsacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering”before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).
Hand,arm.Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship,clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth inawe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut.4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1Kings 8:42; 2Kings17:36; 2Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21;Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is oftenused of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies andenemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act forthe sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).
Sincethe right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the righthand indicates being favored (1Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt.22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2;1Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under thethigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen.48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).
Clappingthe hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse(25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job clapshis hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission andrepentance (Job 40:4–5).
Handscan be lifted in worship (1Kings 8:22; 1Tim. 2:8), tobeseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath(Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1Sam. 24:6, 10;2Sam.1:14; 18:12).
Pilatewashes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus(Matt. 27:24), while 1Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humblethemselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that indue time they will be lifted up.
Buttocks.Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult andprovocation, as happens to David’s men (2Sam. 10:4;1Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cush*te captives (Isa. 20:4).
Leg.The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductiveorgans, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen.24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animalthighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21;10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery causea guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).
Themost common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship orreverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), indefeat (2Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps.57:6), or in respect (1Kings 1:31). In what seems to be asomewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees inprayer (1Kings 18:42).
Feet.Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures inthe Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;43:24; 1Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), orin supplication (1Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as ablessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8;cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandalscan be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace(Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplicationbefore the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans cansignal deception (Prov. 6:13).
Enemiescan be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1Kings5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), havetheir feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15;105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation anddefeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the bloodof their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).
Thoseoverwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2Kings4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), whilethose emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2;3:24; Dan. 8:18).
Inthe NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication ofdivine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying ata person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt.15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37;5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipesthem with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an actof love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared hisbody for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washeshis disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood anddiscipleship (John 13:5–14).
Fingers,Toes.Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. Afinger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15;9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of theright thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20;Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).
Onewears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture ofrestoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motionin deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writeswith his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture ofindifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).
Clothesand Shoes
Garments.Garments attain significance as they are related to specificemotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen.37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments inmourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6;21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1Kings 21:27;2Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).
Rippingsomeone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2Sam.10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer.13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’sclothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons withdefiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing tornclothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).
Bylaying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may beacknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).
Sandals.A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10),while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicategiving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). Asandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast overa piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).
PropheticGestures
Propheticgestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentanceand approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiahputs a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekielcooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 daysand then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah stripsoff his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries anunfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).
Inthe NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment(Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinkswine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46;20:11; 27:35; 1Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christianpractices.
A Jewish prophet at the time of Jesus, he was the son ofpriestly parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth), executed by HerodAntipas, and identified as “John” (a common Jewish name),often with the title “the Baptist” or “theBaptizer,” the latter possibly being the older title.
Ourprimary sources on John the Baptist are the canonical Gospels,Josephus (Ant. 18.116–19), and Acts. Both Jewish and Christiansources note John’s message of the kingdom, call to baptism,and popularity. Josephus and the Gospels can speak of him withoutintroduction. In the Gospels, only Jesus is a more prominentcharacter. It is possible that the typical peasant was more familiarwith John than with Jesus, at least until after Pentecost.
TheGospels, 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 thekingdom, denounced the Jewish leadership, and practiced baptism. Itis easy to see how some on the periphery confused the characters(Mark 8:28).
Ministry
Dressedin a prophet’s garment of camel’s hair (Matt. 3:4; cf.2Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4), the Baptist is noted for emerging fromthe wilderness and preaching near the Jordan. He called all listenersto repent to prepare Israel for the coming covenant of the Spirit. Heand his message were well known, disconcerting Jerusalem’spowerful elite (Mark 11:32) and enthralling the masses (Matt. 3:5–6).
Johnthe Baptist unwaveringly maintained that he was sent to introduce theSon (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 notnamed, but the Baptist was told how he would know him: “The manon whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one”(John 1:33). Thus, the Baptist could claim, “I myself did notknow him” (John 1:31), more likely meaning that the Baptist didnot 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 cousinpreviously (Luke 1:39–45). Jesus accepts (and validates) theBaptist’s proclamation both at the beginning of his ministry(Mark 1:9) and again later (Luke 16:16; John 5:35; 10:41).
Afterhis imprisonment, the Baptist seems less certain of his earlieridentification of Jesus as the coming one (Matt. 11:2–3). Itshould also be noted that John had not disbanded his disciples. Afterhis death, some continued to preach his baptism of repentance as faraway as in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–26; 19:1–7). Similarly,Jesus’ last description of the Baptist is ambiguous. It isguarded but still complimentary (John 5:32–36; 10:41) and evenlofty: “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyonegreater than John the Baptist”; however, Jesus’ nextstatement could be interpreted to mean that the Baptist was not yetpart of the coming kingdom: “Yet whoever is least in thekingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Likeeveryone else, John was confused by Jesus’ preaching ministry.Jesus was not acting like the Messiah they were expecting (Luke7:18–20). The Gospels offer no final verdict on the Baptist.
Message
LikeIsaiah, the Baptist’s message of restoration of the kingdommeant 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 anew covenant, marked by the Spirit (Mark 1:2–8). Cleansing withwater 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 (2Cor. 3; Heb.9–10). Preparing (Matt. 3:3) meant repenting and living inpiety 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 lustrationswere somewhat common for initiation or membership in a group, Johnthe Baptist called all who would devote themselves to God to repent,confess their sins, and be baptized (Mark 1:4–5).
TheSynoptic Gospels portray Jesus and John as allies in announcing thekingdom. It has been argued that the Fourth Gospel has ananti-Baptist polemic. Because of historical elements (in Ephesus?),it may be more accurate to say that the Fourth Gospel strives toclarify the Baptist’s place in salvation history. He issubordinate 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).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
The term “salvation” is the broadest one used torefer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about byhumankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one ofthe central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis throughRevelation.
OldTestament
Inmany places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued fromphysical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility ofretribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, Ipray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). Theactions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7;47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray forsalvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss.17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).
Relatedto this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its kingwere saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus,whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to theEgyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army(Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history ofIsrael, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether througha judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or evena shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).
Butthese examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritualcomponent as well. God did not save his people from physical dangeras an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to savethem from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation fromsin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does notprovide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearestplaces that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa.40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesiedreturn are seen as the physical manifestation of the much morefundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address thatfar greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servantwould once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa.52:13–53:12).
NewTestament
Asin the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescuedfrom physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being savedfrom various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor.1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fiercestorm, Jesus’ disciplescry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”(Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospelsand Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō,used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman withthe hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road(Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō.The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgivingsomeone’ssins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost fromtheir sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holisticsalvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the newheaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensivedescriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people fromtheir sins (see below).
Components
Inseveral passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term forthe totality of what God has done for his people in and throughChrist. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that ittakes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration”refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person fromspiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7;Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of Goddeclaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis ofChrist’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” capturesthe reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of theirslavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7;5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardenedrebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2Cor.5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extendsthat reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom hereconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom.8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” Godsets his people apart for his special purposes and progressivelychanges them into the image of Christ (1Cor. 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 hispeople resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death,and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30;1Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).
Prepositionsof Salvation
Anotherway that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through thevarious prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in thefollowing list are among the more significant.
From.Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is notsurprising that Scripture describes that from which believers aresaved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all mytransgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible onlythrough Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people fromtheir sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus onthe cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death ofChrist believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10).At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus savedpeople from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result ofthese and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the dayof Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from thiscorrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimonyof Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and itsconsequences.
To/into.Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/intocertain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves,believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory ofthe children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through thecross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness andbrought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13).Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace intowhich believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’swork on their behalf (John 14:27).
By.Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to expressthe instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not bysword or spear that the Lord saves” (1Sam. 17:47). In thebroadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel(1Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by thegrace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can alsoexpress the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israelwas 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 savinghis 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 throughfaith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have beenjustified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal.3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “butthat which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). Theremarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have beenaccomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).
In.Especially in Paul’s writings the various components ofsalvation (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 (1Cor. 1:2)in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenlyrealms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).
With.Many of the components of salvation that believers experience aresaid to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united withChrist 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 hisinheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1Pet. 1:4). Eventhe very life of the believer is said to be currently “hiddenwith Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).
Tensesof Salvation
TheBible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses.Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believersthat “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he canalso speak of himself and other believers as those “who arebeing saved” (1Cor. 1:18; 2Cor. 2:15), pointing toa process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuringbelievers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2),he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’swrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).
Theuse of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet”dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, andascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. Butthe final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvationmust still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a newheaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).
Conclusion
Withouta proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of itsrebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makeslittle 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 theirsins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrewsasks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?”(2:3).
Sanctificationand Holiness
Inthe biblical sense, the word “sanctification” relatesdirectly to the Hebrew and Greek words for “holy” (qadoshand hagiosrespectively). One may even argue that “holy-fication”would be preferable to “sanctification” to underscore theintertwined nature of these terms. In Scripture, English terms suchas “holy”/“holiness,”“consecrate”/“consecration,” and“sanctify”/“sanc-ti-fi-cation”/“saints”express cognates of qadosh/hagios.
Despitecontinued emphasis by many writers that “holy” speaks toseparation and that “to be holy” means “to be setapart,” the biblical terms are relational and speak primarilyof belonging. “To be holy” (sanctified) means “tobelong to God”; separation follows only as the exclusivity ofthis relationship demands it.
Qadoshis God’s adjective. God’s character defines the meaningof “holy,” not the other way around. Holy, then, cannotbe reduced to religious notions of purity (and/or exclusivity) butrather must be understood in light of the full expression of God’scharacter and will. While other adjectives such as “great,”“majestic,” and “powerful” can also describehumans, God exclusively determines the meaning of the adjectiveqadosh(hagios).“Holy” has no meaning apart from God. Humans (and things)become holy only as they belong to God. For example, an ordinarytable dedicated to God becomes aholy table. The peoplebelonging to God area holypeople. Different from otherspirits, the Holy Spirit belongs to God and expresses his presenceexclusively (cf. Isa. 6:3; 52:1).
Itfollows that holiness and divine presence are tightly interwoven. Godopens the door into his presence, enabling sanctification (John17:18; 1Cor. 1:2; Heb. 10:10), and he calls for his people notto violate his relational presence (2Cor. 7:1; 2Tim.2:21; Heb. 12:14). Sanctification, then, is not as much an intrinsic“either/or” quality (granted or not granted) as it is arelational “more or less” quality based on God’sdynamic presence. Put differently, the biblical perspective onholiness resists reduction to a mere “holy versus profane”dichotomy and cannot be reduced to a simple declaration (granted!) orto a specific list of godly requirements (dos and don’ts).
OldTestament
Thegradation of the OT priesthood into levels of holiness that enabledentrance and service in weaker or stronger intensities of God’spresence underscores further this dynamic quality of holiness.Although all the people of Israel were holy (belonging to God), thepriests enjoyed a higher degree of holiness than the ordinaryIsraelite. Within the ranks of the priests, the high priest wentthrough stricter rituals of consecration (Exod. 29:1–8, 20–21;Lev. 8:7–24; 21:13–15), since he alone could minister inthe most intensive presence of God (Lev. 16:1–17). Less holywere those of the Aaronic lineage born with physical defects.Although sufficiently holy to eat from the most holy offerings, theycould not serve at the altar (Lev. 21:16–23).
AverageIsraelites possessed a lower level of holiness than Levites andpriests but could, as individuals, acquire greater levels of holinessthrough obedience (Lev. 11:44–45; Num. 15:40–41).Moreover, special vows, like that of the Nazirite, enhanced theaverage Israelite’s quality as holy. The Nazirite vow (Num.6:1–21) did not transfer priestly status to any person, but itdid elevate one’s holiness to a comparable level during theperiod of dedication.
Thisdynamic connection between divine presence and sanctification becomeseven more evident in the prophets. They were “holy men”because they were endowed with the divine spirit, and as the level ofthis endowment varied from prophet to prophet, so did theireffectiveness as God’s messengers. False prophets still carriedthe name, but their lack of devotion to Israel’s God causedinaccuracy in their message (e.g., Jer. 6:13–14).
NewTestament
Thisdynamic relationship between divine presence and holiness translatesdirectly to the NT use of hagiasmos (and cognates). Although theGospels rarely use “sanctification” vocabulary, Jesus’ongoing polemic against the Pharisees, who had turned their piety(holiness) into a question of mere conspicuous behavior, makes thesame point. John’s correlation of Jesus’ sanctificationas God’s Son with the disciples’ experience of theSpirit’s empowerment (John 10:34–38; 17:17–19)indicates the same. Sanctification could not be separated frompurpose and sending (20:21–23) and could not be reduced to aprocess of learning specified “Christian” behaviors.This, again, follows the pattern outlined in Acts; it was theoutpouring of the Spirit that enabled the disciples to live theChristian life, which required the dynamic, creative power of God’spresence (Acts 1:8; 2:1–21).
Paul’sconversion exemplifies this tight connection between divine presenceand sanctification (holiness). Not attaining the experience of Godthat he expected from keeping the law, Paul found the law-promisedaccess to God in Christ. This turned him into a theologian of theSpirit who focused on the relational quality of God’s presence.In Paul’s vernacular “divine presence,” asexpressed through the language of holiness or sanctification, stemsfrom the relational work of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly,sanctification centers on deepening the relationship between God andthe Spirit-filled Christian. Sanctification as a process of“learning” ethics surfaces only as a derivative; ethicsis a by-product of divine presence, not vice versa. The antidote tothe vices of the flesh (Gal. 5:18–21) is not a contrasting listof virtues of the Spirit but rather a fruit, the product or result,of living in God’s presence (Gal. 5:22–23).
ForPaul, Spirit possession was synonymous with being a Christian (Rom.8:9). His concern involved the intensity of the Spirit’spresence. The Spirit could be grieved and his presence quenched—adevastating situation to the Christian’s power and sanctity(Eph. 4:30; 1Thess. 5:19).
The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OTsuffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev.26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25;cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by whichblessing comes to humanity.
TheBible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17;6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18;1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assumethat he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4,20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in thefinal chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friendsfor their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writermakes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness.Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume thatblindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesusrejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3,6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
Theprayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal andthirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within thelaments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, makerequests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Whyhave you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints againstGod (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“Youhave made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemiesmock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm andnot a man” [22:6]).
TheNT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in theOT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3;26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps.22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presentedas the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation,God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8;Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the pricefor sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set freefrom sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18).(3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom.8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet.2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13),and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to sufferas his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provideshope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil.3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev.21:4).
Thereare many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19;16:22–24; 18:17; 2Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb.10:32; 1Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’splan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1Thess. 3:2–4) and ispart of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22;Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1Pet. 2:21; 4:12).
TheNT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it hasbecome part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering ofbelievers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel(Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11;6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16;2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor.1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb.10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God(Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), andthe crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of thedevelopment toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor.4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Sufferingis associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal(2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness,sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10);comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8);blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor.4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christiansuffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character andhope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity andcompleteness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentarywhen compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom.8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7;4:12–13).
Throughoutthe Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OTlaw provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged,and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10,35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesusregularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3;19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom.12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom.12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visitprisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
Showing
1
to
50
of149
results
1. Only One
Illustration
Author Unknown
While two visitors were visiting Annapolis, they noticed several students on their hands and knees assessing the courtyard with pencils and clipboards in hand. “What are they doing?” one of them asked their tour guide.
“Each year,” he replied with a grin, “The upperclassmen ask the freshmen how many bricks it took to finish paving this courtyard.”
“So what’s the answer?” one of the visitors asked the tour guide when they were out of earshot of the freshmen.
The guide replied, “One.”
That brings up an interesting theological question. How many sacrifices did it take to finish paying for our sins? The Jews would have needed lots of pencils and clipboards to make the calculation. “Let’s see, let’s take all the sin offerings, all the guilt offerings, the bulls, the goats, the lambs, the turtledoves . . .”
So what’s the answer? How many sacrifices did it take to finish paying for our sins? Only one.
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered the sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.” (Heb. 10:11-12).
After thousands and thousands of sacrificial animals had been sacrificed, Jesus Christ gave his own life on the cross. Only then could it be said, “It is finished.” (John 19:30).
2. I Will Remember No More
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
The evangelist, Luis Palau, met Maria Benitez-Perez. Maria had made an appointment under false pretenses. She claimed that she wanted to interview for a job. But as soon as she entered his office, Maria made her intent clear.
She was the secretary to the Communist Party in Ecuador. She denounced everything having to do with God or with Jesus Christ. Her bitterness overwhelmed Palau. But he listened respectfully and replied gently to everything Maria said. Soon, Maria was telling him her life story. It was a tale of pain and suffering and sin. And she ended it all with one question, "Supposing there is a God. Would He accept a woman like me?"
Palau didn't hesitate. He turned to Hebrews 10:17 and read, "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."Maria tried to explain once again all the sins she had recently committed. Palau countered with Hebrews 10:17, "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."
Seventeen times Maria tried to explain why she was unworthy to receive forgiveness. Seventeen times. Luis Palau repeated the words: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And finally, Maria Benitiz-Perez bowed her head and prayed to receive Christ. Just like in the life of Maria Benitiz-Perez, there comes a point when we all have to decide about Jesus. Either He is or He isn't what He says He is. He either does or doesn't do what He claims He claims He can do. If He IS and DOES, then what's the hold up. Why are you still doubting? And if He isn't and doesn't, then why are you still listening?
3. Tearing the Roof Off
Illustration
Larry Powell
It seemsthe scribes were always around. In our scripture we learn that Jesus was at his home in Capernaum. When word spread throughout the community, a great crowd gathered inside and out the house, prevailing upon Jesus to teach them. We are told that some of the scribes "were sitting there questioning in their hearts." Why were they there anyway? Out of curiosity? To heckle? To find fault? Were they acquaintances of Jesus that they could come into his home and find a place to sit while so many others were standing? I don’t know ... but it seems the Scriptures always bear the same foreboding comment, "the scribes were sitting there," or "nearby." At any rate, on this particular occasion, they got their eyes full.
First, there was a commotion. Four men were literally dismantling the roof of the house. When a large enough opening had been torn away, down came a pallet with a man on it. Although the Scriptures do not mention the scribe’s reaction to the paralytic’s rather crude entrance, we can imagine the sudden changing of their sophisticated expressions as they tugged nervously at their robes and mumbled beneath their breath. However, they may not have been surprised at all ... they had joked among themselves that the Nazarene’s clientele included harlots, tax collectors, the sick, unstable, ne’er-do-wells, and common sinners. Perhaps such an abrupt intrusion through the roof did not impress them at all, but was rather consistent with the kind of people attracted by the unorthodox carpenter. But again, that was but the beginning.
Jesus made bold to forgive the paralytic’s sins! The scribes could sit still no longer: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Jesus replied, "Why do you question me like this? Let me ask you a question; which is easier to say to a paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk?’ " In a word, it is a small matter to mouth the words, "Your sins are forgiven." It is true that anyone can repeat these words whether they have the authority or not but in order that the scribes might know that Jesus possessed the authority, he did something more. Turning to the paralytic, he said, "Rise, take up your pallet and go home." To their astonishment, the paralytic did just that. He had received a double portion inasmuch as his sins had been forgiven and he had been physically healed. Additionally, the scribes had something to think about.
I want to say a word about the persistent souls who tore the roof off the house. Their determination is to be admired. Have you ever entertained the thought of visiting a sick friend or shut-in but decided against it because the weather was threatening, or the temperature was uncomfortable, or you were tired? Even the best of intentions are sometimes easily discouraged. Here were four men who could have turned away from the house when they saw such a crowd, thinking "we’ll come again later." But no, they pushed their way through the crowd with the paralytic, climbed to the roof and made up their minds to get inside. They loved their friend enough to go to some extra effort, and they had absolute faith that the man inside could heal him. I hope I have a few friends like that. The paralytic owed a great deal of his recovery to his friends. What a combination: loving friends, persistent faith, and the touch of Christ!
4. PRIEST
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Deuteronomy 26:4 - "Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God."
Among the nomadic tribes there was no developed priesthood. Religion partook of the general simplicity of desert life; apart from the private worship of household gods, the ritual observances were mainly visits to the tribal sanctuary to salute the god. with a gift of the first-fruits. These acts required no priestly aid; each man slew his own victim and divided the sacrifice in his own family circle; the share of the god was the blood which was smeared upon or poured out beside the stone set up as an altar. In the beginning, therefore, we find no trace of a sacrifical priesthood.
With the beginning of nationality, however, starting with the Exodus and developing into the Conquest, there was developed a unity of worship. However, even then, this unity was still not expressed in fixed institutions; the first-fruits were still a free gift, and every household represented and consumed them with his own family circle in a sacrificial meal without preistly aid.
In fact, rather than being just an officiator at sacrifice, the priest was the organ of revelation and he gave guidance in the ordinary affairs of life, the word for priest as adopted by the Hebrews from a Canaanite word, means "soothsayer," or "revealer." So, then, the function of the early priests was to reveal the word of God, either by reference to a legal code which contained the revealed will of God and the accumulated experience of the past.
Even after the people settled and sancturies were built, the role of the priest continued to be more of a judge than the person we think of as offering sacrifice. However, as more and more sanctuaries appeared and the Hebrews absorbed more of the ways of their neighbors, and, ultimately, with the establishment of the monarchy, a more and more elaborate ritual developed that required a professional priesthood.
There were regular public offerings maintained by the king and offered by the priests; private sacrifices required priestly aid; their judicial functions also brought them profit, since fines were exacted for certain offenses and paid to them. The greater priestly offices were therefore in every respect very important places, and the priests of the royal sanctuaries were among the grandees of the realm, but there is no indication of a hierarchy existing by divine right.
It was in post-exilic Israel that the priesthood as we usually think of it came into existence, although the reform by Josiah in 621 B.C. gave the prerogative of sacrifice to the priests alone. Already in the time of Josiah, altar service and not the judicial or "teaching" function had become the essential thing, but by the time of Ezekiel it had mainly to do with ritual, with the distinction between holy and profane, clean and unclean, with the statutory observances at festivals and the like.
The holiness of Israel centered in the sanctuary, and round the sanctuary stood the priests, who alone could approach the most holy things without profanation, and who were the guardians of Israel’s sanctity, partly by protecting the one meeting place of God and man from profane contact, and partly as mediators of the continual atoning rites by which breaches of holiness are expiated. In the old kingdom the priests had shared the place of the prophets as the leaders of thought were the psalmists and the scribes, who spoke much more directly to the piety of the nation.
From the foundation of the Hasmonean state to the time of Herod the history of the high priesthood merges into the political history of the nation; from Herod onward the priestly aristocracy of the Sadducees lost its chief hold over the nation and expired in vain controversy with the Pharisees.
Today, aside from the Roman Catholic Church, and the High Episcopal Church, we prefer to use the term "pastor" rather than priest for our spiritual leaders. But we must recognize the influence of the Hebrew priesthood on the thought and organization of Christendom. Two main points were taken over - the doctrine of priestly mediation and the system of priestly hierarchy. We cannot here go into doctrinal matters, but it is enough to say that the concepts of sacrifice which are still retained in the Roman system are the stumbling-block on which Protestant apologists fall. Within the Roman Church the old priestly system still is evident in many ways.
5. Unforgiveness is What Ails Us
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The famous psychiatristKarl Menningersaidthat if he could convince the patients in his psychiatric hospitals that their sins are forgiven, 75 percent of them could walk out the next day. So often we do not take God at his word!
6. Lead Us Not Into Temptation
Illustration
Donald B. Strobe
In our Lord's Prayer we are often puzzled by the traditional words: "Lead us not into temptation." How can this be? The Letter of James says that "God tempts no one." (James 1:13) Many of us much prefer the more modern ecumenical version of the Lord's Prayer. I'd like to know what you think. Do you find it helpful to understand the words, or would you rather use the more traditional, familiar phrasing? You all know, of course, that even in the traditional form of the prayer there are differences. Methodists ask to have their "trespasses" forgiven, while Presbyterians pray about their "debts." Someone once said that the Presbyterians, being Scots, would rather have their debts forgiven than their trespasses any day! Be that as it may, the Greek word actually means "sins". That is what we are praying about. To have our sins forgiven to the same extent that we are willing to forgive those who have sinned against us. Pretty strong stuff, huh! "Save us in time of trial," says the Ecumenical Version. Testing times are not intended to make us fall; they are sent to strengthen us. And God is there to help.
7. The Debt We Owe
Illustration
David Livingstone
People talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. Can that be called a sacrifice which is simply acknowledging a great debt we owe to our God, which we can never repay? Is that a sacrifice which brings its own reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny? It is emphatically no sacrifice. Rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, danger, foregoing the common conveniences of this life these may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing compared with the glory which shall later be revealed in and through us. I never made a sacrifice. Of this we ought not to talk, when we remember the great sacrifice which He made who left His Father's throne on high to give Himself for us.
8. As If You Had Not Sinned
Illustration
Albert Barnes
What is justification? It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Savior. It is not mere pardon. Pardon is a free forgiveness of past offenses. It has reference to those sins as forgiven and blotted out. Justification has respect to the law, and to God's future dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him hereafter as righteous as if he had not sinned. The basis for this is the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ, merit that we can plead as if it were our own. He has taken our place and died in our stead; He has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on our own heads if He had not interposed.
9. The Sacrifice Play
Illustration
William J. Carl, III
Sacrifice is not a word we use much these days, is it? When was the last time you used it or thought about it in terms of your own life? When was the last time you sacrificed anything for anybody? Come to think about it, there's only one sport as far as I know where the term is actually used. Do you know which sport that is? You can almost hear Harry Cary announcing it over the radio, "And there it goes, a long fly ball to left; easy out, but the man on third tags up and trots home. Sacrifice fly."
What a great idea: you're out, but you helped someone else score a run. Baseball is one of the few sports where you lose but the team still gains. Do you remember the way comedian George Carlin spells it out in his routine about the contrast between the hardness of football and the softness of baseball? He says: In football you Tackle! In baseball, you "catch flies…" In football you Punt! In baseball you "bunt…" Football is played on a Gridiron! Baseball is played on a "field…" In football you Score! In baseball you "go home…" In football you Kill! In baseball you "sacrifice…"
Baseball may be the only sport where you actually can hear this word. It's one of the few places anywhere that you hear it in a self-centered, take-care-of-yourself, don't-worry-about-anybody-else society. In contrast to football, sacrifice may sound like a sign of weakness but I hardly think of any of the Atlanta Braves or Minnesota Twins as weak. Baseball's one thing; life is quite another. Who sacrifices anything any more in a time like ours? Who really denies themselves and takes up crosses anymore? Actual sacrifice can lead to bitterness, especially when you thought you were trusting God's plan for your life and suddenly you realize that you have to sacrifice all your greatest hopes and dreams as burnt offerings on the high altar of the providence of God.
10. Who Is Jesus?
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Now, more than ever, we need to face the question, "Who is the real Jesus?" Is the Christ of faith the Jesus of history? What is the truth about Jesus? What can we believe? We turn to the Apostles' Creed which has given the church's answer for 2,000 years.
Different Positions
It is not strange that the most popular question of our time is, "Who is Jesus?" Was this question not answered in Matthew 16:16 when Peter said to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"? In Jesus' day, too, there were different opinions about Jesus. When on a retreat with his disciples, he asked them what people were saying about him. The public was divided: Jesus was considered to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What more of an answer do we need than the answer of Peter? Jesus accepted his answer as the truth, for he said, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Yet, after twenty centuries, we do not believe what Peter said about the identity of Jesus. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Jesus is the Son of God." A recent report from Germany indicated that only one out of every four believe in Jesus Christ. Throughout Christian history down to the present, there are different views of Jesus. Now let us look at some of them.
1. The All-Human Jesus
Human
According to this position, Jesus is 100 percent human. It was held as early as the first centuries of Christianity by the Ebionites. They denied that Jesus was divine. He was only a teacher, prophet, miracle-man, and one with an outstanding character. But he was not divine, the Son of God. Today this view is held by many, including atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, and other non-Christian religions.
2. The All-Divine Jesus
Divine
Opposite the Ebionites, Docetists held that Jesus was entirely divine. He was not at all human. This view was originally taught by Eutychus, a monk in a monastery near Constantinople. In the fourth century, Appolonarius, bishop of Laodicea, popularized the teaching. It was known as Docetism, from the Latin word docere meaning "to seem." It just seemed that Jesus was human. It was based on the idea that the physical and material were inherently evil. The human body therefore was sinful. Jesus therefore was not human, for God could not be identified with sin. Docetists held that Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by the divine. This denied the Incarnation, the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh."
3. The Half And Half Jesus
Human/Divine
Nestorians took the view that Jesus was half human and half divine. It was taught by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in the fifth century. To this day it is a very popular understanding of Jesus. When we see Jesus hungry, thirsty, and tired, we say it was because he was human. When he struggles in prayer and on the cross cries out, "My God, why ...?" we see the human Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus is God when he walks on water, feeds 5,000, raises the dead, heals lepers, and rises from the grave. The problem with this view is that we have a divided Jesus -- two persons in one body.
4. The Adopted Jesus
Divine
Human
This is known as adoptionism. According to this position, Jesus came into the world as a human. Because of his moral excellence, his perfect obedience to God, his wisdom, his compassion for people, and his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross, the Father adopted him as his son at his baptism. This adoption was confirmed by the resurrection and the ascension. Jesus then became a deified man.
5. The Both And Jesus
Human & Divine
The above different positions concerning Jesus caused great concern, for the gospel was at stake. If Jesus were only human, then he was just a martyr on the cross and not the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. If he were only human, the resurrection was a fairy tale. His promises of forgiveness and eternal life were meaningless. His claims to know God and to be one with God would then be the words of a religious fanatic who was deluded into thinking he was the Son of God.
On the other hand, if Jesus were only divine and not human, humanity would be the loser. Because he was human, he became one of us. As a human, he fulfilled the law for us. Through his humanity we could see the nature of God. Above all, he became sin for us so that sin, through him, could go out of the world. As a human Jesus knows our human condition. Like all of us he was tempted and he showed that by the power of God we can overcome temptation to sin.
Consequently, the church had to take a stand on the question of Jesus. Is he only human, only divine, or half and half? In 451 A.D. the church held a council at Chalcedon to decide the issue. The church decided that it was not a matter of Jesus being fully God or fully human, or half and half, but it was a matter of both, both fully human and fully divine. To this day the church holds to this truth stated at Chalcedon:
We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, or a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father with respect to the Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect of the manhood, like us in everything but sin ...
This is to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man. These two natures are blended into one integrated personality. He is not a split personality, nor does he suffer from schizophrenia. It is like a blender in your kitchen. Suppose you put apples, peaches, and pears in it and pushed the "on" button for a minute. Now what do you have -- apples, peaches, and pears? Yes, you do, but can you tell which is which? They have become one fruit, one substance. Also, it is like hom*ogenized milk. When the raw milk comes from the farm, a dairy runs it through a hom*ogenizer. As the milk runs through the machine, pistons compact the milk so that the cream and skim milk are made one. As a result you cannot take cream off the milk. In the same way, the human and divine natures of Jesus are compacted into one integrated person.
This means that the Father and the Son are one. When Jesus prays, God also prays. When the human Jesus suffers and dies on a cross, God is in Jesus enduring the cross. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). When the human Jesus speaks, it is also God who speaks. When Jesus weeps, God weeps. This truth makes us realize the seriousness of the cross. It was not only a human on the cross, but God was there in Jesus. Good Friday is the day God died in Jesus. Indeed, the murderers did not know what they were doing; they did not know they were killing God! As the spiritual says, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble."
11. Protective Passion
Illustration
Glenn E. Ludwig
This past summer, there was a young mother mallard who had her brood. And it was interesting to watch how she took care of all seven of them. When anyone approached the lake, she became immediately aware and would gather her little brood together and hustle them along to hide in the reeds and brush that surrounded the edge of the lake. Once, someone went really close to get a better look, and she flew away. I was surprised by that at first – a mother abandoning her young. But then it became obvious what she was up to: She was offering herself as a decoy. She wanted the intruders to notice and follow her, away form her ducklings. She was willing to sacrifice herself in order to protect her offspring.
Now maybe we can understand the lament and the passion in Jesus' own voice. It is the cry of a mother who is worried to death about not only Jerusalem, but about all of us. Like a mother, Jesus sees far more clearly than do we, the children, the danger we are in. Like a mother, Jesus knows we tend to overestimate our powers and are prone to go off on our own, leaving the protective wings, to seek our own excitement and adventure. And like a mother, Jesus chases after us.
Do you see the image? Like a mother, Jesus' love is so great that his all-consuming passion is to sweep us up into his protective arms. And although there are others in pursuit of him, namely Herod, Jesus, like a mother is persistent. He sticks to what his love compels him to do. He pursues his flock with a passion. His answer to Herod shows that: He has a little work to do in Galilee yet, a few chicks to sweep beneath his wings; and then, he is headed to Jerusalem, where he will, in essence, fly off from his chicks alone and draw God's judgment to him so that the jaws of death might sink their teeth into his flesh only, and not into his children whom he loves with a mother-hen's protective passion.
12. Our Logo the Cross
Illustration
Brett Blair
Marketing experts are always quick to tell start-up businesses how important it is to develop a corporate logo. "Brand identity" they call it.Think about it. One symbolcan readilyidentity a billion dollar organization. The ultimate goal of any designer when creating a logo is to develop a mark thatidentifies the company but also persuade viewers to respond in a specified manner.
Logos. So what makes a good logo? Here are the five things that most marketing agencies agree makes a good logo:
- Simplicity. Is it easy to look at with minimal movable pieces?
- Brand consistency. Does it fit your company’s overall message?
- Memorability. Easy for customers to recall, which leads to repeat customers and word-of-mouth.
- Remarkability. Will it cut though the clutter of your industry and say who you are?
- Market testing. Don't trust your gut. It should be market tested.
What does that mean for religious organizations?I mean that sounds too worldly an approach right? But I'm going to say, I agree. The same holds true for us. Apicture ISworth a thousand words. Around the spiritual dimensions of our lives we can be consistently and powerfully moved by a single sign or symbol. For the Jewish people it isthe Star of David, for Buddhists, the figure of their enlightened teacher sitting in that cross-legged position, and for us as Christians the central "logo" of our life is probably the greatest logo ever created forany business or organization. It is the envy of every marketing expert. It is so powerful it carries the meaning of all we know here as humans upon this earth:suffering. But it also embodies all our hopes and all the promises of love, reconciliation and forgiveness. It creates no confusion; it belongs to one world wide movement. Noone for 2000 years has tried to steal it and use it for their own ideas. It stands for defeat. It stands for victory. And yet, given all this, it is so simple a child can create it with two sticks. It is the cross, that sacred sign of God's sacrifice offered through Christ.
What a logo,huh? 1. It is simple. 2. It is consistent with our mission statement. 3. It isMemorable. Off the charts on memorability isn't it? It created great word-of-mouth and repeat customers. 4. Remarkable? It certainly cuts through the clutter. How can it not with the events that surrounded it. 5. And we've been market testing it for 2000 years. Would you say that it's passed the market test?
This is our marketing plan, our movements "logo," and through it we arecontinually reminded of God's undying love for the world and of our call to love and serve one another throughout the course of our earthly existence.
13. Looking at the World through the Eyes of God - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
I can't think of a greater condemnation to be levied against a people than this: They loved darkness instead of light. I would never want that to be said of me. But that is the way God sees the world. You and I see the world as it is right now. Most of the people around us try and do the right thing and when we are wrong hopefully we apologize. So we tend to think well of most people. But look out on the passage of time….
The Ancient World of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Hellenism, Rome, Persia, India, and East Asia was filled with the ignorance of hundreds of thousands of gods, magic, rituals, superstitions, human sacrifice, conquests, sewage(refuse was mostly thrown into the streets for the rats and dogs), disease (priests attempted to foretell the course of a disease by examining the livers of sacrificed animals). And the list doesn't end there: ethnic bigotry, civil wars, persecutions, despots, tyrants, class rule, and the systematic murders of tens of thousands.
The Middle Ages of Persia, Constantinople, Islam, Britain, China, India, Genghis Khan and the Mongols, Timur and the Turks, Europe, African Empires and the Americas. All of them covered in the darkness of man's inhumanity to man: Revolutions, expansionism, Mohammad's Conquest and Christianity's Crusades, warlords, heretics, witchcraft, increased trade bringing death and plagues to millions, and the crowding in the cities spreading the misery all the more. And on top of this misery wars fought for every ridiculous reason known to man.
The Enlightenment and the Modern world also have faired no better. We too have loved the darkness instead of the light. Europe, Africa, Mid-East, India, and the Americas have all dipped their finger into the cesspool of sin: Guns, germs, slavery, the need for women's suffrage, massacres, socialism, resistance to democracy, religious fundamentalism's resistance to progress, Fascism, Communism, The Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan, greed, the market crash, The Depression, world wars, The Bomb, and lest we forget 9/11.
I can't tell you what a short list this is. And this says nothing of the millions of women and children who have suffered throughout the ages at the hands of ruthless men. There is no way to write that history because it is hidden from the pages of history.
Yes! Men have loved darkness rather than light. There is a morbid destructive tendency in all of us. We dabble in the diabolical. We revel in revenge. And we hate in our hearts. My, how we love to live in the shadows! What must God think of us?
Here is his verdict, as true today as it was when it was pronounced 2000 years ago: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light, because their deeds were evil. This is Jesus' description of mankind. And can any of us argue with him?
For a few moments let's look at the world through the eyes of God. What does he see? He sees that....
1. There are those whose deeds are evil.
2. There are those who live by the truth.
3. There are those who acknowledge their need for forgiveness.
14. Like the Cry of a Mother
Illustration
Glenn E. Ludwig
It was interesting to watch a young mother mallard take care of all seven of her ducklings. When anyone approached the lake, she became immediately aware and would gather her little brood together and hustle them along to hide in the reeds and brush that surrounded the edge of the lake. Once, someone went really close to get a better look, and she flew away. It might surprise you at first that a mother was abandoning her young. But then it became obvious what she was up to: She was offering herself as a decoy. She wanted the intruders to notice and follow her, away form her ducklings. She was willing to sacrifice herself in order to protect her offspring.
Now maybe we can understand the lament and the passion in Jesus' own voice. It is the cry of a mother who is worried to death about not only Jerusalem, but about all of us. Like a mother, Jesus sees far more clearly than do we, the children, the danger we are in. Like a mother, Jesus knows we tend to over-estimate our powers and are prone to go off on our own, leaving the protective wings, to seek our own excitement and adventure. And like a mother, Jesus chases after us.
Do you see the image? Like a mother, Jesus' love is so great that his all-consuming passion is to sweep us up into his protective arms. And although there are others in pursuit of him, namely Herod, Jesus, like a mother is persistent. He sticks to what his love compels him to do. He pursues his flock with a passion. His answer to Herod shows that: He has a little work to do in Galilee yet, a few chicks to sweep beneath his wings; and then, he is headed to Jerusalem, where he will, in essence, fly off from his chicks alone and draw God's judgment to him so that the jaws of death might sink their teeth into his flesh only, and not into his children whom he loves with a mother-hen's protective passion.
15. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
A few years ago someone came up with an ingenious acrostic for the bible. B.I.B.L.E. means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. I really like that. The Bible is our basic instruction book for life and relationships. Oh, I know, you can't turn to an index and get direct advice about how to deal with your straight A student who suddenly decides they want to pierce their eyebrows or dye their hair clown orange. Or a child who has decided that the only thing they can eat is a diet of quail eggs, coconut water, kiwi and tabouli. It doesn't give direct answers about what movies we should let our children see or what curfew we should set for what age.
But it DOES speak to us of a loving caring God. It isfilled with stories of loving caring parents. It doesshow by example what loving relationships should be like. It doestell us the ramifications of disobedience and disrespect. And it doestalk about grace, love, mercy, forgiveness, and about giving and sacrifice.
16. Lessons to Learn
Illustration
In her book, Discipline, the Glad Surrender, Elisabeth Elliot reveals four meaningful lessons to be learned from the discipline of our possessions:
"The first lesson is that all things are given by God...Because God gives us things indirectly by enabling us to make them with our own hands (out of things He has made, of course) or to earn the money to buy them...we are prone to forget that He gave them to us.
We should be thankful. Thanksgiving requires the recognition of the Source. It implies contentment with what is given, not complaint...it excludes covetousness.
The third lesson is that things can be material for sacrifice. The Father pours out His blessings on us; we, His creatures, receive them with open hands, give thanks, and lift them up as an offering back to Him...
This lesson leads naturally to the fourth which is that things are given to us to enjoy for awhile...What is not at all fitting or proper is that we should set our hearts on them. Temporal things must be treated as temporal things received, given thanks for, offered back but enjoyed.
17. NOT GUILTY!
Illustration
John H. Krahn
The young man enters the traffic court. In minutes he takes his turn before the judge. "Says here you were doing forty-five-miles-an-hour in a twenty-five-mile-an-hour zone. Guilty or not guilty? How do you plead?"
"Guilty, your Honor," comes the reply.
"Not guilty," bellows the judge. "Next case."
Such an exchange seems highly unlikely in most courts of law. Most judges would simply slap a fine on you.
Yet there is a system of justice which delivers "Not guilty" verdicts on people who do wrong. This system began when a cry broke the silence of a Bethlehem night. A child was born, and God became a man. Jesus became God’s answer to people who need help.
God had a plan. Jesus was to live the perfect life. He did. When he got older, he began to speak out against sin, and before long he was in trouble. At age thirty-three his enemies brought a case against him, and they crucified him on a trumped-up charge. Three days later, several women visited his grave only to discover it vacated. He had returned to life! God’s power overcame death’s power, and Jesus lived again.
Jesus’ resurrection gave birth to a new judicial system. Now those who believe in Christ can offer their faith in him as payment for their mistakes. And when they do, God declares them, "Not guilty."
Jesus will come again to earth. At that time we will stand before him to receive justice. As those who believe approach the bench, he will look into their hearts and find himself. "Not guilty" will be his response as he turns and says, "Next."
18. Why Did the Cheering Stop?
Illustration
Finally, I would suggest to you that the cheering stopped because Jesus began to talk more and more about a cross. In the early part of his ministry Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God. That's what they wanted to hear about, especially since they misunderstood this kingdom to be a restoration of Israel to the days of King David’s glory. But increasingly Jesus began to talk about sacrifice—even giving up your life.
The story is told of the pee-wee baseball game. When the young boy got up to the plate he looked over to the coach, and he saw him give the signal to sacrifice bunt. He then promptly proceeded to take three big swings and strike out. The coach ran up to him and said: Didn’t you see me give you the signal to sacrifice. Yes, the boy replied. But I didn’t really think that you meant it.
Isn’t that what we so often say to God. Yes, lord, I heard that talk about sacrifice but I didn’t really think that you meant it, but the cross says emphatically that he did mean it.
I began this sermon with the question, "Why did the cheering stop?" It stopped because Jesus more and more began to talk about commitment; it stopped because Jesus opened up the doors of the church and invited people to come in. But most importantly of all, it stopped because Jesus began to talk about across.
19. When We Are Young
Illustration
Donald J. Shelby
When we are young, our dreams are big and exciting, and we believe we will realize them all. We will have our own prestigious law firm, be a renowned surgeon, a media superstar, president of the corporation, Nobel Prize winning scientist, sing like (Pavarotti), dance like (Fred Astaire), write like Camus, paint like Wyeth, and play golf like Jack Nicklaus. Every young couple who gets married is sure that theirs is going to be the ideal marriage, the perfect union. We don't have to dispute such dreaming, nor disparage ambition and idealism. In fact, give me an idealist any day over a cynic especially a 21-year-old cynic.
Yet, those who have weathered turnings of the seasons know that between the dream and the reality falleth the shadow, as T. S. Eliot observed. Along about age 30 or 35, that shadow descends, and we (may) learn that we do not possess the gifts we imagined we had, that we are not going to sing, paint, or play golf like anyone but ourselves. This is the time when we become too old to be young, and are still too young to be old; time when we must saddle our dreams and accept the fact that some of them will not come true, that certain ambitions will not be met.
20. An Ending and A Beginning
Illustration
Welcome to this time and place of worship. God bless you in your coming, and as you go forth, may God bless you in your going.
A short while ago we heard the first notes of the organ prelude as this worship hour began. That was the signal for us to close the curtain upon the week that is past, upon all its cares and burdens, its frustrations and its failures.
A short while from now we shall hear the notes of the organ postlude as this hour comes to its close. That will signal the opening of the curtain upon the week that is to be - that we may move into it with assurance, that we are forgiven the sins of yesterday, that we are at peace with God through Christ, that we are walking with him.
So then may this hour be for each of us an ending and a beginning - as a curtain closes and a curtain opens - as yesterday is put away and tomorrow opens up before us with all its hope and another chance at living.
21. Rest on God's Word
Illustration
An elderly man said to H.A. Ironside, "I will not go on unless I know I'm saved, or else know it's hopeless to seek to be sure of it. I want a definite witness, something I can't be mistaken about!"
Ironside replied, "Suppose you had a vision of an angel who told you your sins were forgiven. Would that be enough to rest on?"
"Yes, I think it would. An angel should be right."
Ironside continued, "But suppose on your deathbed Satan came and said, 'I was that angel, transformed to deceive you.' What would you say?" The man was speechless.
Ironside then told him that God has given us something more dependable than the voice of an angel. He has given His Son, who died for our sins, and He has testified in His own Word that if we trust Him all our sins are gone. Ironside read I John 5:13, "You may know that you have eternal life." Then he said, "Is that not enough to rest on? It is a letter from heaven expressly to you."
God's Spirit used that to bring assurance to the man's heart.
22. DIPS IN DISCIPLESHIP
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Contrary to what some of you may be thinking, this meditation, "Dips in Discipleship," is not a pejorative way of speaking about certain disciples of Christ. Had that been my intent, I would not have used an outdated term like "dip." We are not talking about dumb people who are out of touch with reality. Rather, I am referring to those times in our lives as Christian disciples when we enter into the valleys of depression. The times when nothing goes right, when thing get so bad that even God seems to have deserted us. We probably all have been through some of these times in our Christian lives. Perhaps some of us have dipped into the valley of depression recently and are still there. There are even times when it seems that the harder we try to do the will of the Lord, the more life gangs up on us and brings disappointment our way. As a result, we sometimes dip into pits of spiritual depression.
Now listen carefully, God deserts no one. God isn’t a problem provider. There is evil in the world that causes dips in discipleship, but there is no evil in God.
Remember the children’s prayer, "God is great, God is good, and we thank him for our food"? That prayer is true. God is great and God is good - there is no evil in God. God is not the author of the dips. Crying out to God, "Why are you doing this to my life?" is dumping your garbage at the wrong doorstep. Rather, curse the Devil, the devisor of dips. Evil causes mental, physical, and spiritual sickness. When we become a disciple of Christ, we can almost guarantee that old evil foe is not going to sit on his thumbs but will put a few dips in the way of our lives.
Although God does not lead us into valleys of despair, he is even present in those valleys. As the psalmist says, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for thou art with me." Even if we abandon God; he does not abandon us. As C. S. Lewis wrote, "The gates of hell only can be locked from the inside." God is always as close to us as a whispered prayer.
When he told the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus left no doubt that it is the Father’s desire to forgive us and re-enter into a loving relationship even after we have had a dip in discipleship. When all of our best efforts have failed and we realize that we can’t go it alone, through prayer we can invite the Holy Spirit to conquer the evil within us and to reinstate us as a member in good standing of God’s family.
When you are engaged in a particular life crisis, remember the story of David and Goliath. God helped David conquer a very large problem. If your life is calling upon you to stand firm for your principles, remember the time when Luther went to the Diet of Worms. The possibility of death snapped at his heels, but God was with him. He was not alone. Through God, he was also victorious.
23. Don’t Look Back
Illustration
Brian Stoffregen
Frankly, none of us are going to make the cut to follow Jesus. Our desires for soft pillows and comfortable beds, for fulfilling family and social obligations, will frequently have higher priorities than following Jesus especially following Jesus all the way to the cross. We might be willing to give up some evils in our lives to follow Jesus, but to give up all these good things to put them as a lower priority than Jesus? That is radical discipleship, but Paul writes about doing this in Phil 3:4-11. He considers all his past, good, religious deeds as "rubbish".
Perhaps the image of putting one's hand to the plow and not looking back (or driving forward in a car while not looking out the back window) refers to looking back both at all the very good things in our lives (and in a congregation's life), like family and friends, comforts and satisfactions, "successful" programs; but also all the sins in our lives, which have been forgiven by Christ. We can neither wallow in our past sins nor boast of our past successes if we are to be fit for the kingdom of God.
24. Holiness Shining through Humanity
Illustration
Scott Hoezee
Frederick Buechner muses on the Transfiguration this way: In the Transfigurationit was the holiness of Jesusshining through his humanness, his face so afire with it that they were almost blinded. Even with us something like that happens once in a while. The face of a man walking his child in the park, of a woman picking peas in the garden, of sometimes even the unlikeliest person listening to a concert, say, or standing barefoot in the sand watching the waves roll in, or just having a beer at a Saturday baseball game in July. Every once and so often, something so touching, so incandescent, so alive transfigures the human face that it's almost beyond bearing" (Whistling in the Dark,Harper San Francisco, 1988, p. 108).
In one sense Buechner here is maybe rendering the actual Transfiguration of Jesus a bit too mundane, a bit too much like what could happen to us on most any given afternoon while riding the bus or walking down a sidewalk. But on the other hand, he may be on to something, and I would add to his musings this one: Even on all kinds of days when the disciples and Jesus were by no means having a mountaintop experience and when dazzling garments whiter than white were nowhere to be seen, even then when Jesus smiled kindly at lepers, looked pained to see a "sinner" being shunned by the Temple establishment, or looked winsome after telling a hurting prostitute to go in peace because her sins were forgiven, there was sense in which the disciples were seeing the face of the divine transfigured in also those ordinary moments. They were seeing hints of glory. They were seeing true God of true God, vividly and surprisingly and, yes, dazzlingly on display in God's One and Only Son, full of grace and truth.
25. God Loves the People
Illustration
Tom Rietveld
The United States today is very similar to what 18th century England was like. Morals were all but gone on the part of the common man. The slave trade was at its height. A godless prison system entertained the people with public hangings. Gambling was a national obsession--one historian said that England was a vast casino. Drinking dominated the pastime of men and boys. False rumors were regularly used to manipulate the financial markets.
Also, the Anglican church was in decay. Zeal for Christ was considered professionally dangerous. 20% of the clergy had been removed or dismissed because of moral and ethical failures. Bishop George Berkeley wrote at the time, "It is to be feared that the age of monsters is not far off."
On to that scene came some young men known as the Holy Club of Oxford. John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, and others made a mission statement together. It said, "We want to reform the nation, particularly the church, and to spread scriptural holiness over the land." From that small group of college students, the face of England was completely changed. Even to the point where most historians agree that the revival that happened under those young men in England saved the English people from the bloody revolution that France went through.
I really don't know what is going to happen to America in the future. But I do know that the only answer to the spirit of despondency, the spirit of separatism, the spirit of impurity, the spirit of guilt... is the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The United States of America needs the message that God loves people. And offers them the chance to start over, have their sins forgiven, and experience reconciliation.
26. The Warning and Promise of Advent
Illustration
Susan R. Andrews
William Willimon tells the story of a funeral he attended when he was serving a small congregation in rural Georgia. One of his members' relatives died, so Willimon and his wife attended the funeral held in an off-brand, country Baptist church. He writes: "I had never seen anything like it. The preacher began to preach. He shouted; he flailed his arms. 'It's too late for Joe. He's dead. But it ain't too late for you. People drop dead every day. Why wait? Now is the day for decision. Give your life to Jesus.' "
Willimon goes on to suggest that this was the worst thing he had ever seen. He fumed and fussed at his wife Patsy, complaining that the preacher had done the worst thing possible for a grieving family - manipulating them with guilt and shame. Patsy agreed. But then she said: "Of course the worst part of it all is that what he said is true."
My friends, each one of us lives in the shadow of the apocalypse - the dark reality of the end of our time and the end of the world's time. That is the warning of Advent. But there is also good news. There is also the promise of Advent - the promise that in the darkness, in the shadows, in the unpredictable anxiety of our unfinished lives, God is present. God is in control, and God will come again. With each candle we light, the shadows recede a bit, and the promise comes closer. With each candle we light, we are proclaiming that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness will never overcome it. The promise is that wherever there is darkness and dread in our lives, wherever there is darkness and dread in the world around us, God is present to help us endure. God is in charge, and hope is alive. And as long and as interminable as the night seems, morning will come - in God's good time and God's good way.
27. FOR UNTO YOU
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Imagine with me for a moment what it was like that first Christmas Eve, the night Jesus left heaven to go down to earth. Like any boy leaving home, Jesus left heaven. Perhaps the Father said something like this to him, "Now, Son, I’ve got to send you down to earth because my people have really messed things up. They are unhappy. Many are lonely and down on themselves. I want you to go down to give them new hope and to provide a way for their sins to be forgiven so that we can all get back together again."
So Jesus walked to the door of heaven, but before descending he turned and asked, "Father, what will I tell them?" And the good Heavenly Father put his arms around his Son and said, "When you get down there, all you need to do is tell them that I love them. That is all. Just tell them that I love them."
At Christmas all of us gladly hear these words of love: "For unto you," the angel said, "is born ... a Savior." He is ours, each one of us individually. In Christ the Father says, "I love you, Bill. I love you, Barbara. I love you, Jim, Bob, Peggy, Marge. I sent my Son unto you, Ralph, Betty, Fred." The baby Jesus is the Father’s message of love for each of us individually.
Listen carefully for the Good News God has for each one of you personally. Three simple, powerful, wonderful words, "I love you." Everyone presently having a hard time - remember that you are not alone: God loves you. Everyone feeling lonely or grieving should know that you are not alone, for God loves you. Everyone afraid of tomorrow and what the future might bring, you are not alone, God loves you.
"For unto you is born a Savior." "Unto you," the angel said. Oh, let the meaning of a personal Savior, Jesus, the Babe of Bethlehem, crash in upon your heart and your entire being. There is Good News for you, the Lord of the entire universe loves you personally. For Emmanuel, God with us, is truly with us. Rejoice and give thanks over God’s gift of love to you. Receive him and the peace of God the angels sang about that first Christmas will keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus until life everlasting.
28. Atonement: Because He Died
Illustration
Oswald Chambers
We trample the blood of the Son of God if we think we are forgiven because we are sorry for our sins. The only explanation for the forgiveness of God and for the unfathomable depth of His forgetting is the death of Jesus Christ. Our repentance is merely the outcome of our personal realization of the atonement which He has worked out for us. It does not matter who or what we are; there is absolute reinstatement into God by the death of Jesus Christ and by no other way, not because Jesus Christ pleads, but because He died. It is not earned, but accepted. All the pleading which deliberately refuses to recognize the Cross is of no avail; it is battering at a door other than the one that Jesus has opened. Our Lord does not pretend we are all right when we are all wrong. The atonement is a propitiation whereby God, through the death of Jesus, makes an unholy man holy.
29. In the Quiet of the Wilderness
Illustration
Edward F. Markquart
The wilderness is silence and quiet. It is the elimination of the sounds of television, the radio, the stereo, the iPod, the cell phone. It is the elimination of the voices of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends. It is the elimination of the racing tape of your own mind that absorbs your thoughts. The wilderness is quiet. It is utter stillness. It is being alone with God. It is for a moment, for a minute, for a month, being still - absolutely still - …and listening. God speaks in the wilderness of silence. The city is so noisy; so busy; so crowded. The wilderness is silence and God speaks to us through the silence.
In the wilderness, you actually hear the voice of God speaking, "Be washed. Be cleansed of the pollution of resentment, anger, fear, and vengeance. Be washed of whatever is hurting your life and the lives of those around you."Hear the voice that says, "Your sins are forgiven; go and sin no more." Hear the voice that says, "Love one another as I have loved you." Hear the voice that says, "You shall love the Lord your God with all that is in you, all your heart, all your mind, all your soul and all your strength…and love your neighbor as you love yourself."
Be quiet. Be still. In the wilderness, you finally can see the stars and hear the sounds of the wind that are blocked out by the cacophonous noise of the city. In the quietness of the wilderness. Be still and you will hear the voice of God.
30. Forgiving As God Forgives
Illustration
Scott Hoezee
Someone once said that the scariest, most sobering word in the entire New Testament is that tiny little word "as." "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." That vital connection between God's abiding forgiveness of us and of our in turn forgiving others tells us that we must forgive. This is not some weird demand on God's part, however. This is not some hoop we must jump through to earn our salvation or to perform like some trained dog just because God enjoys watching us do tricks.
No, the reason for the connection between God's forgiving us and our forgiving others is because of the sheer power of God's forgiveness. It is so great that it simply must and will change us. The reason God expects us to forgive as a result of our being forgiven is the same reason you can expect to be wet after diving into Lake Michigan: water is wet and when you immerse yourself in it, you get wet. So also with forgiving grace: grace is magnetic and beautiful. When God immerses you in grace and saves your life eternally by it, you will be dripping with grace yourself. You will be full of grace and truth and so spread it to others.
31. With a Repentant Heart
Illustration
Charles W. Colson,
Believers dare not come to the Lord's Table except with a repentant heart. "Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner," as Paul puts it, "drinks judgment to himself." That should be a sobering warning, especially when the apostle adds that because of this offense many have fallen ill or died. Any pastor who takes the Word of God seriously should never administer Communion without adequately warning partakers. Those who are unrepentant should flee the table rather than trivialize the sacred.
And God does not view this sacred act lightly. Pat Novak, pastor in a nonsacramental denomination, discovered this when he was serving as a hospital chaplain intern just outside of Boston several years ago. Pat was making his rounds one summer morning when he was called to visit a patient admitted with an undiagnosed ailment. John, a man in his sixties, had not responded to any treatment; medical tests showed nothing; psychological tests were inconclusive. Yet he was wasting away; he had not even been able to swallow for two weeks. The nurses tried everything. Finally they called the chaplain's office.
When Pat walked into the room, John was sitting limply in his bed, strung with IV tubes, staring listlessly at the wall. He was a tall, grandfatherly man, balding a little, but his sallow skin hung loosely on his face, neck, and arms where the weight had dropped from his frame. His eyes were hollow.
Pat was terrified; he had no idea what to do. But John seemed to brighten a bit as soon as he saw Pat's chaplain badge and invited him to sit down. As they talked, Pat sensed that God was urging him to do something specific: He knew he was to ask John if he wanted to take Communion. Chaplain interns were not encouraged to ask this type of thing in this public hospital, but Pat did.
At that John broke down. "I can't!" he cried. "I've sinned and can't be forgiven."
Pat paused a moment, knowing he was about to break policy again. Then he told John about 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's admonition that whoever takes Communion in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself. And he asked John if he wanted to confess his sin. John nodded gratefully. To this day Pat can't remember the particular sin John confessed, nor would he say if he did, but he recalls that it did not strike him as particularly egregious. Yet it had been draining the life from this man. John wept as he confessed, and Pat laid hands on him, hugged him, and told John his sins were forgiven.
Then Pat got the second urging from the Holy Spirit: Ask him if he wants to take Communion. He did. Pat gave John a Bible and told him he would be back later. Already John was sitting up straighter, with a flicker of light in his eyes.
Pat visited a few more patients and then ate some lunch in the hospital cafeteria. When he left he wrapped an extra piece of bread in a napkin and borrowed a coffee cup from the cafeteria. He ran out to a shop a few blocks away and bought a container of grape juice. Then he returned to John's room with the elements and celebrated Communion with him, again reciting 1 Corinthians 11. John took the bread and chewed it slowly. It was the first time in weeks he had been able to take solid food in his mouth. He took the cup and swallowed. He had been set free.
Within three days John walked out of that hospital. The nurses were so amazed they called the newspaper, which later featured the story of John and Pat, appropriately, in its "LIFE" section.
32. A Hostage Repents
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
Terry Anderson is probably the best known of the American hostages kept in Lebanon. Anderson, an Associated Press journalist, was held hostage for 2,454 days! His ordeal began innocently enough on March 16, 1985. As he dropped off his tennis partner after a morning match he noticed a green Mercedes pulled up just ahead of where he was stopped. Suddenly three young men came charging out of the car. Each had a 9-mm pistol hanging loosely on their hip. In a flash they were at Anderson's car window. "Get out," one of the men shouted. "I will shoot." Anderson got out. He was pressed into the back seat of the Mercedes and whisked away. The hostage ordeal for Terry Anderson had begun.
Anderson's first days of captivity were appalling. He was blindfolded most of the time. Held in chains. Interrogated roughly. His mind did not know how to react. Anderson realized that he was on the edge of madness. He was losing control of his capacity to think. "I can't do this anymore," he finally told his captors. "You can't treat me like an animal. I am a human being." When asked what he wanted he replied that he wanted a Bible. Not long afterwards a heavy object landed on his bed. He pulled down his blindfold. It was a Bible. He began to read. In Genesis!
Terry Anderson had been raised in the Catholic Church. Even though he had not been a practicing Catholic for years, however, the Bible came to him as a gift from heaven. He read. He pondered his life. He had lots of time to ponder his life. Too much time to ponder his life. He began a litany of confession in his mind. He confessed that he had hurt his first wife and daughter. He had made many mistakes. He had been a very arrogant person. He wasn't sure that people liked him much. He wasn't sure he liked himself very much.
Later in the first year of his captivity Anderson became aware of the fact that other hostages were living next door. One was a priest. Father Lawrence Jenco. He asked his captors if he could see the priest. "I am a Catholic," he told them. "I want to make a confession."
His wish was granted. Father Jenco came to his room. They both took off their blindfolds. Anderson hardly knew where to begin. It had been 25 years since he had last made confession. Father Jenco was encouraging. Anderson began reciting to this priest the sins he had been reflecting upon. There was much to confess. A bad marriage. Chasing women. Drinking. Anderson found it a very emotional experience. When he finished both he and Father Jenco were in tears. Father Jenco then laid his right hand upon Anderson's head. "In the name of a gentle, loving God, you are forgiven," the priest proclaimed.
Terry Anderson's faith deepened immensely in his hostage years. This moment of confession with Father Jenco, however, was his first formal step back into the church. Self reflection had grown within him out of the darkness of his hostage encounter. It was time to face the light. It was time in his life for a turn around."
33. Forgive Us Our Debts - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
As with so many of the stories of Jesus, the parable of the debtors arose out of a question that was posed to Jesus. Simon Peter said to him: "Master, if my brother sins against me, how many times should I forgive him? Seven times? Even as he asks that question my mind cannot help but think about children and how they will sometimes confess something they do wrong expecting to get praise from a teacher or a parent because they were so honest.
In the same sense, Simon Peter by asking this question is not expecting rebuke but praise. He is expecting Jesus to say: ?Excellent Peter. You go to the head of the class. You get A+.? According to Jewish law, Peter had the right to think that he had done something good. Scribal law clearly read:
'If a man transgresses one time, forgive him. If a man transgresses two times, forgive him. If a man transgresses three times, forgive him. If a man transgresses four times, do not forgive him.' What Peter has done is to take this law of limited forgiveness, multiply it by two and add one, and then sit back with a smile on his face and say: Now how is that for being a great guy? And he surely must have been taken aback when Jesus said you must forgive seventy times seven.
Then Jesus proceeded to tell a story. There was a certain king who had a day of reckoning for his servants. He found one who owed him 10,000 talents and, because he could not pay, he was about to have him thrown into jail and his wife and children sold into slavery. In response to the man's pathetic pleadings, however, he forgave him the entire debt.
Whereupon that forgiven servant went to a fellow servant who owed him 100 denarii, a very small sum of money, and demanded payment. He pleaded for extra time, an extension, but the man would not hear of it and he had him thrown into jail. This story got back to the king who went into a rage. He called in the forgiven servant and said that because of his conduct, he was now to be thrown into jail. His original debt was reinstated.
Now the question is, what was Jesus attempting to say to Simon Peter?
1. First, forgiveness carries a heavy price.
2. Second, a forgiven soul should be a forgiving soul.
34. The Meaning of Life - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
In Act 5 scene 5 of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the character Macbeth has heard that the queen is dead and he knows his own death is imminent. At this time he delivers his famous soliloquy:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow
creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, Out, brief candle
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Is Macbeth right? Is life nothing but a shadow having no substance, no meaning? Writers and philosophers since recorded time have tried to answer the question. I don't think any of them have been successful in answering the question to everyone's satisfaction. Some one once said that "Trying to speak about the ultimate reality is like sending a kiss through a messenger." I understand their point: Something of its truth is lost in the translation.
What is the meaning of life? A philosophical question to be sure but this is not only the philosopher's question. It is a genuinely human question and therefore a question that we all ask. It might be a question that is asked in despair or hope, out of cynicism, or out of sincere curiosity and a deep desire to have goals and guidance in life. However we raise the question about the meaning of life, it is our most basic and fundamental question.
And so it comes as no surprise that Jesus deals with this question and answers it. Surprisingly, the answer is not given in the context of an argument with the Jewish leaders or in a discussion with his disciples, and it is not given in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus deals with so many fundamental issues. It is telling that Jesus deals with the meaning of life in the context of prayer.
In the context of what has been called, by many scholars, Jesus' High Priestly Prayer. [Pause] The Disciples are in the upper room, now. They have just finished the Passover meal and Jesus is thinking about his crucifixion which will occur within the next 24 hours. He knows he is about to leave his disciples alone in the world and he goes before God as a priest would, to intercede for them, to pray for them.
Listen again to his prayer. I am lifting out a few key verses: "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe, but I will remain in the world no longer…Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life…and this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." It is in this third verse that Jesus delivers the meaning of eternal life and in essence the meaning of life itself. He says, "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
In essence, Jesus says, "the meaning of life is this: that you have a relationship with God, and me his Son, Jesus Christ." And that's the long and short of it! But, Jesus himself, understood just how difficult it was going to be not only for his disciples but for all of us to come to this very simple realization in life and so he prays for two key things. First, in order that we might understand the meaning of life…
1. He Prays for Our Protection from the World.
2. He Prays That We Might Know God.
35. Renouncing Disgraceful Ways
Illustration
John R. Steward
We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's Word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (v. 2)
A young man was visiting with his pastor one afternoon. He had been in the pastor's confirmation class many years before. In fact, after his confirmation experience he rarely came to church except for Christmas and Easter. Now he was an adult and very much involved in the world. During this visit, he was bragging to his pastor about some of his business practices. He said, "In my business, I have lied many times in order to close certain deals. But it doesn't bother me. I don't care about that. If I have to cheat and steal, I will do it because I don't really care about that."
The pastor listened very intently to the young man's testimony. Then the pastor shared with him how Jesus had come to earth to die and be raised again so that his sins could be forgiven and so that he could have eternal life. At this point, the pastor asked the young man if he would do him a favor. Would he go home and look in the mirror and say ten times, "Jesus Christ died for me, but I don't care about that." The young man thought that it was a little silly but agreed that when he got home he would do that. When he got home, he began to do what the pastor had suggested. He looked in the mirror and said, "Jesus Christ died for me, but I don't care about that." He could only say it two times and then decided to return to the pastor's office at the church. With tears in his eyes he said, "If God sent his Son to die for me, I do care about that and I want to know more."
Reprinted from With Him All the Way by Oscar Anderson, copyright 1948, Augsburg Publishing House.
36. Overcoming the Habit
Illustration
P. Meier
Many years ago in St. Louis, a lawyer visited a Christian to transact some business. Before the two parted, his client said to him, "I've often wanted to ask you a question, but I've been afraid to do so." "What do you want to know?" asked the lawyer. The man replied, "I've wondered why you're not a Christian." The man hung his head, "I know enough about the Bible to realize that it says no drunkard can enter the kingdom of God; and you know my weakness!" "You're avoiding my question," continued the believer. "Well, truthfully, I can't recall anyone ever explaining how to become a Christian."
Picking up a Bible, the client read some passages showing that all are under condemnation, but that Christ came to save the lost by dying on the cross for their sins. "By receiving Him as your Substitute and Redeemer," he said, "you can be forgiven. If you're willing to receive Jesus, let's pray together." The lawyer agreed, and when it was his turn he exclaimed, "O Jesus, I am a slave to drink. One of your servants has shown me how to be saved. O God, forgive my sins and help me overcome the power of this terrible habit in my life." Right there he was converted. That lawyer was C.I. Scofield.
A few of you may recognize that name. There is a Bible that bears his name: The Scofield Reference Bible. Over 10 million have been sold and it is easily one of the most influential Christian publications of the twentieth century.
37. Forgiven and Gone
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
Corrie ten Boom, in her book Tramp for the Lord had these words to say regarding forgiveness:
"It was 1947 .... I had come from Holland to defeated Germany with the message that God forgives. It was the truth they needed most to hear in that bitter, bombed-out land, and I gave them my favorite mental picture. Maybe because the sea is never far from a Hollander's mind, I like to think that that’s where forgiven sins are thrown. 'When we confess our sins,' I said, ‘God casts them into the deepest ocean, gone forever .... Then God places a sign out there that says No Fishing Allowed!"'
38. Remade In His Image
Illustration
George W. Hoyer
G. K. Chesterton in his autobiography wrote about the effect of forgiveness, of the absolution. He was referring to the words of absolution spoken by the presiding minister after a confession of sin: "I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Somewhat freely paraphrased, this is what Chesterton said: Forgiven Christians "do truly, by definition, step out again into that dawn of their own beginning ... God has really remade them in his own image. They are now, each one of them, a new experiment as they were when they were really only five years old. They stand in the white light at the worthy beginning of a new life. The accumulations of time [of previous sinning] can no longer terrify. They may be grey and gouty; but they are only five minutes old."
39. He Forgives and Forgets
Illustration
David H. Bolton
In A Forgiving God in an Unforgiving World, Ron Lee Davis retells the true story of a priest in the Philippines, a much-loved man of God who carried the burden of a secret sin he had committed many years before. He had repented but still had no peace, no sense of God's forgiveness.
In his parish was a woman who deeply loved God and who claimed to have visions in which she spoke with Christ and he with her. The priest, however, was skeptical. To test her he said, "The next time you speak with Christ, I want you to ask him what sin your priest committed while he was in seminary." The woman agreed. A few days later the priest asked., "Well, did Christ visit you in your dreams?"
"Yes, he did," she replied.
"And did you ask him what sin I committed in seminary?"
"Yes."
"Well, what did he say?"
"He said, 'I don't remember'"
This is what God wants you to know about the forgiveness He freely offers you. When your sins are forgiven, they are forgotten. The past—with its sins, hurts brokenness, and self-recrimination—is gone, dead, crucified, remembered no more. What God forgives, He forgets.
40. The Healing Power Of Faith
Illustration
Harold H. Lentz
The woman with the issue of blood had faith that by contact with Christ she could be cured. All around us in daily life are examples of people who, by faith, are overcoming life's difficulties.
A telephone linesman was up a pole when the pole, which was held in place only by cables, fell over him and he was dashed to the ground. His insides were badly crushed and as he was rushed to the hospital; there was little hope that he could survive. A pastor learned of the accident when the man's wife called from the hospital. She said that the very best surgeons in the community had operated but found that he was beyond repair and they had given up all hope. She had been informed that her husband would die within the hour. She asked the pastor to hurry to the hospital to baptize her husband before he died. The pastor entered the sickroom to find a patient with the color of death, too weak to speak. Quickly the pastor explained that God loved the patient. In a few words he explained that baptism makes one a child of God whose sins are forgiven through Christ's death on the cross. Then he asked the patient if he wished to be baptized. The man was too weak to do more than slightly shake his head in consent.
As the pastor left he asked the wife to call him when death came. The pastor got no call that day, nor through the following night. So the next morning he called the wife, who told him that her husband was still alive and some of his color had returned. He fell asleep after the pastor's visit, something he had not done since the accident, and he even ate some food for the first time. The man recovered completely and in a few months was once again climbing telephone poles. All medical help had proven of no avail, but evidently the introduction of faith, and the spiritual dimension, had caused the man to rally. It has been well said, that "more things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of."
41. Who Will Wash Your Sins?
Illustration
Alila stood on the beach holding her tiny infant son close to her heart. Tears welled in her eyes as she began slowly walking toward the river's edge. She stepped into the water, silently making her way out until she was waist deep, the water gently lapping at the sleeping baby's feet. She stood there for a long time holding the child tightly as she stared out across the river. Then all of a sudden in one quick movement she threw the six month old baby to his watery death.
Native missionary M.V. Varghese often witnesses among the crowds who gather at the Ganges. It was he who came upon Alila that day kneeling in the sand crying uncontrollably and beating her breast. With compassion he knelt down next to her and asked her what was wrong.
Through her sobs she told him, "The problems in my home are too many and my sins are heavy on my heart, so I offered the best I have to the goddess Ganges, my first born son." Brother Varghese's heart ached for the desperate woman. As she wept he gently began to tell her about the love of Jesus and that through Him her sins could be forgiven. She looked at him strangely. "I have never heard that before," she replied through her tears. "Why couldn't you have come thirty minutes earlier? If you did, my child would not have had to die."
Each year millions of people come to the holy Indian city of Hardwar to bathe in the River Ganges. These multitudes come believing this Hindu ritual will wash their sins away. For many people like Alila, missionaries are arriving too late, simply because there aren't enough of these faithful brothers and sisters on the mission field.
42. A Simple Answer
Illustration
Lee Griess
Could that have been Judas' greatest downfall, the inability to see himself as a sinner and hence receive God's forgiveness? For without that sense of forgiveness, life holds little joy and the future is hopeless. Someone once said that the person who knows himself or herself to be a sinner and does not know God's forgiveness is like an overweight person who fears stepping on a scale.
There once was a very bitter man who was sick in soul, mind, and body. He was in the hospital in wretched condition, not because his body had been invaded by a virus or infected with some germ, but because his anger and contempt had poisoned his soul. One day, when he was at his lowest, he said to his nurse, "Won't you give me something to end it all?" Much to the man's surprise, the nurse said, "All right. I will." She went to the nightstand and pulled out the Gideon Bible and began to read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life." When she finished she said, "There, if you will believe that, it will end it all. God loves you, forgives you and accepts you as his child."
Such a simple answer. But it worked for that man. He realized after much soul-searching that she had spoken truly. And over a period of some time, he came to believe and accept God's love for him.
There is a way to God. Jesus died to provide it. We may not be Mary or that "woman of the city," but there are sins that weigh upon our hearts. There are scars and cuts that we have inflicted on others. There is a darkness within each of us that no one knows of but God. But that same One, our loving God, sees all and forgives all and calls us to God.
Remember, the one who is forgiven little loves little. But the one who is forgiven much loves with all the heart! May that be true of us. In Jesus' name. Amen.
43. Blasphemy Against the Spirit
Illustration
Staff
This statement (Matt 12:32, par Mk. 3:29, Luke 12:10) has been the subject of much questioning. Obviously the reference here is not to the naming of the Holy Spirit in a blasphemous utterance, for in Matt. 12:32 even blasphemy against the Son of man can be forgiven. Among the many attempts at exegesis, the most convincing is the suggestion that the man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who has recognized that God is working through the Holy Spirit in the actions of Jesus, and who quite consciously "misrepresent faith in God as faith in the devil. This saying is an extremely serious warning against the demonic and scarcely conceivable potential in man: To declare war on God. This is not done in weakness and doubt, but by one who has been overcome by the Holy Spirit and who knows very well on whom he is declaring war" (E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, 1971, 87; cf. H.W. Beyer, TDNT I:624; O.E. Evans, "The Unforgivable Sin", ExpT 68, 1956-57, 240-44). This is the blasphemer who does it deliberately, after encounter with the God of grace, as the context shows. For Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. "Therefore he who blasphemes the Spirit is no longer speaking against a God who is distant, about whom he entertains mere foolish thoughts, but against the one who makes evident to him his gracious work, and confirms it with his manifest, divine seal. He is a man who ought to give thanks, not to blaspheme" (A. Schlatter, on Matt. 12:32).
W.L. Lane draws attention to Sifre on Deut. 32:38 (end): "The Holy One, blessed be he, pardons everything else, but on profanation of the Name [i.e. blasphemy] he takes vengeance immediately" (The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 145) Lane goes on to comment: "This is the danger to which the scribes exposed themselves when they attributed to the agency of Satan the redemption brought by Jesus. The expulsion of demons was a sign of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God. Yet the scribal accusations against Jesus amount to a denial of the power and greatness of the Spirit of God. By assigning the action of Jesus to a demonic origin the scribes betray a perversion of spirit which, in defiance of the truth, chooses to call light darkness. In this historical context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes the conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God released through Jesus' work and act" (ibid). Thus blasphemy here is much more serious than the taking of the divine name in vain which a believer may have done before coming to repentance and faith.
It may be said to those who have been tormented by fear that they have committed the unforgivable sin that their concern is itself a sign that they have not committed the sin envisaged in Jesus' teaching here. Lane's interpretation also helps to explain the distinction drawn between blasphemy against the Son of man and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The distinction suggests that "while an attack on Jesus' own person, as son of Man and therefore 'hidden', is pardonable, any speaking against the power by which he works (i.e. the divine endowment for his messianic ministry) will not be pardoned" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 318). For such an action would be deliberately to attribute to Satan the action of God himself. (NIDNTT, v. 3, pp. 343-344)
What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Though many suggestions have been offered, I think the answer lies in the context here (Luke 12:7-12) and in the context of redemptive history. Remember that the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, and it is the Spirit who causes men to recognize who Jesus is. Hebrews 6 and 10 contain discussions of unforgivable sins, but the distinction between blasphemy against Christ and the Spirit has disappeared. Jesus seemed to be saying this: Because the Holy spirit has not yet been poured out in fullness, the Jews will be forgiven for blaspheming the Son of Man. They will be given a second chance to repent, as we see in the book of Acts. If, however, they continue to blaspheme after the Spirit has come, they will not be forgiven. But what is the sin, specifically? Since it is blasphemy, we must see it essentially as a verbal sin. In context it is the sin of saying that Jesus Christ is of the devil. Jesus was willing to excuse this blasphemy before Pentecost; but, in the new covenant era it is not longer excusable. If a person curses Jesus, but does not really know who Jesus is, that sin is forgivable. But if the Holy Spirit has borne witness to a person that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that person curses Him, it cannot be forgiven.
44. Persons of the Robe
Illustration
Stan Cosby
E. Stanley Jones once told a story about a custom of the people on the Island of Formosa hundreds of years ago to offer human sacrifices. A kindly emperor, however, by the name of Goho, changed all that. According to his law, only animals, not humans, were to be sacrificed. But there was a terrible drought and the crops failed altogether. Once again the people clamored for a human sacrifice. “Very well,” said Goho, “tomorrow morning at dawn go into the forest and find your victim for sacrifice. He will be tied to a tree and wearing a red robe. Strike him for he is your sacrifice.”
Early in the morning the men rose with their clubs and found things to be just as Goho said. There was the sacrifice tied to a tree and wearing a red robe. They rushed forward and slew him. When they pulled the robe and uncovered the face, they were horrified to see it was Goho, their own beloved emperor. By his death, Goho was able to do what his law could never do; change the hearts and minds of his people forever. Never again were human sacrifices offered. And on Formosa, the red robe became a symbol of a changed life. Men discarded their dingy robes and put on red ones as if to say, “I am Goho’s person.” They became known as persons of the robe.
That’s who we are friends. Persons of the robe.
45. Do As You Please
Illustration
Michael Horton
The radical gospel of grace as it is found throughout Scripture, has always had its critics. Jimmy Swaggart once said that by trusting in God's justifying and preserving grace, we would end up living a life of sin before long and thus, lose our salvation and be consigned to hell. Paul anticipated that reaction from the religious community of his own day after he said, "Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more" (Romans 5:20, NKJV). So he asked the question he expected us to ask: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (6:1) Should we sin so that we can receive more grace? In other words, "If people believed what you just said in Romans 5, Paul, wouldn't they take advantage of the situation and live like the dickens, knowing they were 'safe and secure from all alarm'?" That's a fair question. But it reveals a basic misunderstanding of the nature of God's saving grace. Paul's response is unmistakable: "Certainly not? How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Romans 6:2, NKJV).
Someone confronted Martin Luther, upon the Reformer's rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of justification, with the remark, "If this is true, a person could simply live as he pleased!"
"Indeed!" answered Luther. "Now, what pleases you?"
Augustine was the great preacher of grace during the fourth and fifth centuries. Although his understanding of the doctrine of justification did not have the fine-tuned precision of the Reformers, Augustine's response on this point was similar to Luther's. He said that the doctrine of justification led to the maxim, "Love God and do as you please." Because we have misunderstood one of the gospel's most basic themes, Augustine's statement looks to many like a license to indulge one's sinful nature, but in reality it touches upon the motivation the Christian has for his actions. The person who has been justified by God's grace has a new, higher, and nobler motivation for holiness than the shallow, hypocritical self-righteousness or fear that seems to motivate so many religious people today.
46. No Record of Wrong
Illustration
John Flavel
There was a man in England who put his Rolls-Royce on a boat and went across to the continent to go on a holiday. While he was driving around Europe, something happened to the motor of his car. He cabled the Rolls-Royce people back in England and asked, "I'm having trouble with my car; what do you suggest I do?" Well, the Rolls-Royce people flew a mechanic over! The mechanic repaired the car and flew back to England and left the man to continue his holiday. As you can imagine, the fellow was wondering, "How much is this going to cost me?" So when he got back to England, he wrote the people a letter and asked how much he owed them. He received a letter from the office that read: "Dear Sir: There is no record anywhere in our files that anything ever went wrong with a Rolls-Royce."
Did Christ finish His work? How dangerous it is to join anything of our own to the righteousness of Christ, in pursuit of justification before God! Jesus Christ will never endure this; it reflects upon His work dishonorably. He will be all, or none, in our justification. If He has finished the work, what need is there of our additions? And if not, to what purpose are they? Can we finish that which Christ Himself could not complete? Did He finish the work, and will He ever divide the glory and praise of it with us? No, no; Christ is no half-Savior. It is a hard thing to bring proud hearts to rest upon Christ for righteousness. God humbles the proud by calling sinners wholly from their own righteousness to Christ for their justification.
47. The Last Meal
Illustration
Larry Powell
Perhapsyou have visited the Upper Room Chapel in Nashville, Tennessee, and had the opportunity to meditate before the marvelous wood carving and its appointments which so dramatically depict the Last Supper. One of the mysterious features of this particular carving is that no matter where you kneel before the figure of Christ, his eyes gaze strangely into yours. So it must have seemed to the disciples gathered around the table in Jerusalem on that fateful evening. How much more intense it must have been for Judas, and we can but wonder where his eyes were fixed when Jesus uttered those terrible words. "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me" (Matthew 26:23).
So far as the disciples were concerned, they had gathered, as they had done since childhood, to partake of the traditional Passover meal. The streets of Jerusalem were crowded with pious Jews who had come into the city for this express purpose. The ritual was always the same: while at the table, the story of the escape from Egypt would be recounted ... there would be special foods on the table and unleavened bread would be eaten as a reminder of the haste in which the Exodus people had been forced to flee Egypt ... it was always the same.
To the disciples’ surprise however, Jesus suddenly departed from the familiar references; "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ Likewise also the cup after supper saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’ " Jesus had dramatically transformed the Passover supper into the Lord’s Supper on the evening of his "last supper" with them (see also Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-29).
The Lord’s Supper:
1. Is a sacrament, meaning that it was instituted by Christ and commanded to be continued "till he come." In Paul’s familiar passage, used in the sacrament ritual, he adds, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).
2. Symbolizes the new covenant. The Old Testament covenant of the Law was sealed with the blood of animal sacrifice. However, this covenant had failed. The prophets themselves had said, "Behold, the days will come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new convenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." The covenant of Law was being superseded by the new convenant of love, sealed by the blood of Christ.
3. Uses of common elements. In addition to using the traditional elements of the Passover, bread and wine, Jesus realized that each day when his followers partook of their meals, two things were certain to be on the table ... bread and wine. Consequently, even an ordinary meal would include reminders of the new covenant.
4. Was observed anxiously. Devout early Christians met daily to observe the sacrament in the prayerful hope that Jesus would return while they were sharing the sacred meal. In time, the early Church observed the sacrament each Sunday, a practice continued until the Reformation. Oddly enough, in Scotland, during the sixteenth century, it was observed in the country twice and in town four times a year.
5. Is called the eucharist, meaning the "thanksgiving," based on the passage, "He took a cup, and when he had given thanks...."
Perhaps John Calvin spoke for each of us when he admitted that "the matter is too sublime for me to be able to express, or even to comprehend ... I rather experience it, than understand it."
48. Appointment in Jerusalem
Illustration
Larry Powell
Several years agoI saw a rather celebrated movie which had ambitiously undertaken to portray the life of Christ. Although the larger part of the film left a great deal to be desired, at least one scene was, for me, worth the price of admission. Jesus and his disciples were on their way to Jerusalem, passing along the edge of the sea. The face of Jesus was stern, his jaw set, and his eyes fixed straight ahead. The same camera receded until it brought into focus the disciples, the sky, the expanding shoreline, and Jesus ... striding ahead of the others, like a man about to be late for an appointment. I have often recalled that scene, believing that it was with just such urgent resolve that Jesus and his disciples were "going to Jerusalem." As elementary as they may appear, two other things ought to be noted regarding the actual "going."
1. It was Jesus’ decision. That is to say, he chose to go. Characters on stage recite a script, robots manuever as they are programmed, and puppets are manipulated by someone jerking on a string. Real people make decisions. Jesus did not go to Jerusalem simply because it had been written down for him to do so centuries before ... a character reading his lines, being jerked around by a cosmic puppeteer. How primitive it is to reduce Jesus to a wind-up messiah or a "throw-away" person by insisting that he had no mind of his own regarding his own ministry. He chose to go to Jerusalem.
2. It was a decision which would cost his life. He was aware of this even as he made the decision. When someone is led toward a calculated death, it is called a "killing." When someone willingly lays down his life, it is referred to as a "sacrifice." Notice, the Bible speaks of a sacrifice, not a killing.
Luke 19:29-35. Use your imagination for a moment. You are sitting leisurely in your den enjoying precious time with your family when suddenly you hear a disturbance on the carport. You rush to the door, peer curiously outside, and discover two strange men attempting to remove your car from the carport. Quickly, you spring outside demanding an explanation. Their explanation: "We’re taking your car, the Lord needs it." What would be your reaction? Would their explanation satisfy you? Apparently such an explanation was adequate for the owners of the colt referred to in the passage, for no other conversation is recollected. How do you explain the ease with which the two disciples simply walked away with someone else’s property.
Luke 19:37-38. One other matter for consideration: Verse 37 relates that as Jesus rode the colt at the descent of the Mount of Olives "the multitude" rejoiced and praised God. The multitude? Who were they? Where did they come from? How did they know to be there at that particular time? How did they associate the man on the colt with the messiah? (read Zechariah 9:9 and Psalm 118:26-27).
The "going up" to Jerusalem was the result of a monumental personal decision, a decision which would cost the life of Jesus, and involved considerable faith on the part of many.
49. Ruling Against the Majority
Illustration
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country."
The 22 word prayer was declared to be unconstitutional and led to the removal of all prayer from public schools in the case Engel v. Vitale. This little prayer acknowledges God only one time. The Declaration of Independence itself acknowledges God 4 times.
Within 12 months of Engel v. Vitale, in two more cases called Abington v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, the court had completely removed Bible reading, religious classes/instruction. This was a radical reversal of law - and all without precedential justification or Constitutional basis.
The Court's justification for removing Bible reading from public schools? The Court at this time declared that only 3% of the nation professed no belief in religion, no belief in God. Although this prayer was consistent with 97% of the beliefs of the people of the United States, the Court decided for the 3% against the majority.
50. Do Not Call It Sacrifice
Illustration
Bishop Ray W. Chamberlain
A couple, visiting in Korea, saw a father and his son working in a rice paddy. The old man guided the heavy plow as the boy pulled it.
"I guess they must be very poor," the man said to the missionary who was the couple's guide and interpreter.
"Yes," replied the missionary. "That's the family of Chi Nevi. When the church was built, they were eager to give something to it, but they had no money. So they sold their ox and gave the money to the church. This spring they are pulling the plow themselves."
After a long silence, the woman said, "That was a real sacrifice." The missionary responded, "They do not call it a sacrifice. They are just thankful they had an ox to sell."
Showing
1
to
50
of
149
results
- Black preachers condemn Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood: 'Nothing is more racist in America'
- Liberty University faces civil rights lawsuit after firing trans-identified employee
- 'Duck Dynasty' star Willie Robertson on turning darkness into light one conversation at a time
- 13-year-old budding preacher who lived for the ‘Glory of God’ killed for camera
- 5 things to know about Kamala Harris' pastor
- Nigerian Christian remained in captivity to aid elderly Muslim woman
- Nigerian bishop leaves UMC amid hom*osexuality schism; regional body’s future uncertain
- Sen. Mike Lee warns of 'increased hostility' toward Christianity in Washington
- Top 5 nominees for 2024 Gospel Music Association Dove Awards
- Russell Brand slams Olympics opening ceremony 'decadence,' shares favorite Bible verse
- Choctaw Bibles Connect Christians with Lost Heritage
- An Assassination Attempt in Brazil Brought Politics into Churches
- In Asian American Churches, Generational Differences Deter Young Leaders
- What Wrestling Taught an Olympic Gold Medalist About God
- O Say Can You See God in These 5 National Anthems?
- Nigerian Church Watches, Prays as Ocean Rises
- New Alliance Aims to Unite Chinese Churches Divided by Geopolitics
- Americans Are Still Inviting People to Church
- ERLC Retracts Announcement Firing President Brent Leatherwood
- Homelessness Hits Record High, Straining Rescue Missions
- Christian Bioethicists Help Students Consider The Moral Complexities Of IVF
- Hinduism: Concepts and Controversies
- Boys, Boys, Boys - 3 Quarks Daily
- 13-year-old budding preacher who lived for the ‘Glory of God’ killed for camera
- Mahesh Bhatt On Giving Daughters Alia And Shaheen Muslim Names: 'My Mother Was Worried...'
- Harris hit with blistering ad targeting Catholic, Hispanic voters on key issue in crucial swing state
- Bride Is Slammed For Wearing See-Through Wedding Dress To Her Church Ceremony
- “The word on the street was, ‘No-one could be playing that without overdubs.’ Well, the secret’s out. I’ve come clean”: Still copping Victor Wooten’s 20-year-old bass licks? You’d better take another look
- Texas pastor resigns over ‘inappropriate and hurtful’ actions
- Genius Candace Owens dismantles evolution theory
- Trump's 'Beautiful Christians' are Not Only Ones Whose Values Matter
- Being Good Is as Important as Being Right
- Blasphème & Olympiques
- Drag Queen in Olympic Opening Ceremony has No Regrets
- Is Hindu Nationalism Friendly to Christianity?
- Where Lynchings Still Happen
- Vatican II: For Better or For Worse
- After the Fall: A Christian's Confession of His Role in Afghanistan
- Art Center Founded By Fr. Rupnik Pushes Back on Removal of Artwork
- The Trad Family
