21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." 31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
Freedom to Set Free
Galatians 4:21-31
Sermon
by Maxie Dunnam
We are continuing our sermon series on Dynamic Discipleship. Last Sunday our theme was in the image of Charles Wesley’s hymn: “He breaks the power of cancelled sin.” The big word of that message was “Christ frees us from something - specifically, from meaninglessness, guilt, and death. Today, we pursue a variation on that theme. Christ not only frees us from something, He frees us to something.
Let’s begin by exploring our scripture lesson. Verse 1 of Galatians 5 is Paul’s Magna Charta of spiritual freedom. It is to such persons as we are - bound in bland conformity, rigid conventions and sterile artificialities, shackled by guilt which produces an inner rigidity and blocks growth and dynamic discipleship - it is to such persons as we are, smothered in our spiritual development, fettered in self-forged chains, that this word of Paul comes like fresh air on a smoggy day. Listen to it. “Christ set us free, to be free person, to stand firm, then, and refuse to be tied to the yoke of slavery again” (Gal. 5:1 NEB).
Though we know very little about them, it helps us to remember that Paul wrote this word to the Galatians. They were pagan tribes settled on the high table lands of Asia Minor of the same origin as the Celts of ancient Gaul. “Formerly when you did not acknowledge God,” Paul said, “you were the slaves of beings which in their nature are no gods”(Gal. 4:8 NEB). One imagines that, like many pagans of that day, the Galatians offered sacrifices to appease the anger of their gods; they lived in superstition and fear. According to Paul, they were given up to the “....desires of body and mind.. .” (Eph. 2:3 RSV). In a sense, then, the Galatians were slaves to their fears and superstitions slaves to their passions and instincts.
It was to these people that Paul came on one o his missionary journeys, preached the liberating gospel of Christ.
They accepted this Gospel and their lives were changed. They were delivered from their fears and possessed a joyful liberty which comes with a certainty of God’s love and forgiveness.
Paul left a free people in Galatia as he continued his journey - but something happened. Other Christians visited these new converts and confused the issue. They insisted that the converts had not gone far enough. They must now be circumcised, and begin to keep the Sabbath, new moon, and other ceremonies. Confused by these newcomers, the Galatians were tempted to turn again into religious slavery, to get caught up in legalism and negative restriction, to adopt the prohibitions and requirements of a depressing system of ceremonial, moral and ritual law. Paul heard of this and reacted with severity. He wrote this letter to the Galatians pressing upon them the fact that they had been delivered from all of longer are they to be bound by it; they are free. So here we have the declaration of independence for all humanity. “Christ has set us free, to be free persons. Stand firm, then, and refuse to be tied to the yoke of slavery again.”
We need to score that word indelibly upon our mind. It is the essence of wholeness - the foundation for Dynamic Discipleship - freedom. We are to freedom freed. We are set lose by Christ to be free men. So, let’s look at this in detail. Christ frees us from something from meaninglessness. That was the claim of the sermon last Sunday. Now the other aspect of freedom. Christ frees us to something.
I. THE FREEDOM TO BE
First, it is the freedom to be.
Now that is not just a play on words, nor is it an excuse for the kind of free expression of all our drives and passions that some are calling for. It is the freedom to be a person, unique and individual.
Have you ever noted the way Jesus dealt with people? His way with the rich young ruler is completely different from his way with the Samaritan woman at the well. Rather sternly Jesus said to the rich young ruler, “Go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.. .and come, follow me.” (Matt. 19:21 NEB). With the Samaritan woman he was not nearly so stern and direct. He tenderly accepted and carefully led her to a new understanding of her need to fill the gnawing emptiness of her life. Jesus recognized that she was going from one man to another, seeking love and belongingness - but he wasn’t condemning. With a warmth and love she so desperately needed, he pointed to a satisfying water of relationship that would quench her deep thirst.
To them both Jesus was seeking to give the personal identity which had been distorted, destroyed, or never discovered. Keith Miller speaks to us here. He shares with us the snares of the Christian pilgrimage, along with the growth and development that have come from his earnest quest. With refreshing honesty he confessed to being victimized by his false concept and his unconscious desire for consistency.
This new discovery for me he said is that the Christian Church is not trumpet corps – but an orchestra; that we are not all supposed to sound alike because each of us is a different shaped instrument. God had given us our own individual sounds, our own lives. For years I have been a piccolo trying to play in the tuba section because some men I admire greatly play the spiritual “deep notes.” Can you imagine anything more pitiful than a piccolo trying to play in a tuba section? Yet this is the story of much of our lives and we never feel free and natural in our Christian living because we try to be something we are not.
We know about that don’t we?
How often do we forget that God measures us not in terms of what we own, or whom we know, or what we accomplish, but in terms of our own self-integrity - our response to his love.
Probingly, as with the Rich young Ruler and the Samaritan Woman, he calls us from our false illusions, our empty hopes, our aimless goals, our bondage j security, our deflated evaluations of personal worth, our hide-bound systems of righteousness against which we measure ourselves - all the pretenses of our lives. For freedom Christ has set you free! He calls us to our basic relationship with God which preserves and enhances our uniqueness. He reminds us of the persons we are, and provides us the power to recover our personhood. He frees us to be.
II. FREEDOM TO BE RESPONSIBLE
But more - this freedom provided by Jesus is not only the freedom to be, it is the freedom to be responsible. The Christian’s freedom is not license. We are not free from the law in order to sin; we are free not to sin.
Paul sounded this note of responsible freedom when he wrote further in Galatians 5:13—14. “You my friends, were called to be free men; only do not turn your freedom into license for your lower nature; but be servants to one another in love. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
In throwing off the bonds of legalism and rigid moralism, we are sometimes tempted to accept our human imperfection as an excuse for irresponsible behavior. “I am only human,” we mutter. It’s one thing to acknowledge that we are weak sinners; it’s quite another to do so with a shrug of the shoulders and a nonchalant attitude that makes us content with lesser values and a below par performance.
Paul talked about it in these terms, “. . .it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20 RSV). What ever else this means, and it means a full life, it certainly calls me to act in my relationship to others in the way Christ has acted in relation to me. My life of faith is Christ living in me, and my actions should be re-enactments of the life of Christ. Do you see how dynamic this would make our discipleship? The freedom to be responsible.
Our situational decisions are made not according to the whim of the moment, nor by the rule of passion, nor by the pressure of prevailing patterns, nor by whether we get away with it or not, but according to who we are by the power of Christ. The liberty he gives is responsible liberty that draws us out of ourselves with the transforming power to serve others.
III. FREEDOM TO BECOME
The freedom to be, the freedom to be responsible. Now note this final aspect of the freedom to which Christ sets us free. It is the freedom to become.
This may appear to be backtracking on what we have already stated, or maybe even contradictory to it. Not so. Jesus gives us the freedom to be, and the freedom to be responsible, and through these aspects of our freedom we are empowered in our goal of dynamic discipleship which involves growth - that is, becoming.
Jesus was always insisting that we completely reorient ourselves to life. He challenged the rich, young ruler to cut himself free from his dependence on things. He struck a sensitive nerve in the soul of the Samaritan woman and led her to seek meaning on a higher and holier level than sex. So with us. He challenges our false attitudes toward ourselves and our unrealistic views of life. It is only as we shed our false self that our true self is released to life. The shedding of our false self is not a once and for all act. So - our freedom to become.
At the heart of the Christian experience is change/transformation. Here it is in a couple I sat for hours not long ago – a minister and his wife. I know their story – a story of heartbreak and despair.
A ten year recent span in their thirty year’s of marriage that had been empty, vacuous. Neither was sensitive to the other’s needs. The relationship deteriorated to the point of near-destruction for both of them. She came to the breaking point - utter dependency on drugs. They separated. Then she was committed to a state mental hospital.
Enough of the details. I sat with them for four hours - for the most part listening to the poetry the woman had written during the past year.
At the edge of divorce, with the lady still institutionalized, one day the minister was praying for his wife. “Clearly,” he said, “a voice said to me, ‘You’ve got to turn your prayers into action now. You must love Dele - love her with no strings attached - love her like Hosea loved Gomer.’”
Well, it’s a modern day miracle. Dele has been completely transformed and amazingly has become I believe, a great poet. She’s teaching at one the great institutions or our country. Listen to one her poems, which celebrates the renewal of their marriage – the fact that we can change – that we can become what God wants us to be. She called the poem, Prodigal Wife.
Prodigal Wife
Oh call out the guards and
stop the search.
Call my love that I’m found again.
Wandering is over, back home at last,
Saved from the storm, returned to
the fold.
Oh sing out the welcome, find the ring.
Turn out the others, reclaim
our name.
Spread out the banners, destroy
the blame.
Tell my love, I’m home again.
The heart is at rest, the present
is here.
Blessings restored, come happiness now.
United in joy - resolved in love.
Ask this couple. They’ll tell you about freedom – freedom to become.
For freedom Christ has set you free - stand therefore, in it and don’t become a victim of a slavish yoke again. The clanking chains of slavery are loosed by Christ as we are judged and forgiven. We are then free from the sins that burden us down, free from meaninglessness, guilt and the threat of death - set loose to become the unique of God we were created to be.
I close with this. A certain preacher was greeted each Sunday morning by a man whose life s an alcoholic had been turned around by God. He had been freed from those binding chains that led from the preacher’s study to the Chancel of the Sanctuary. Each week the alcoholic who had been set free by Christ would stop the preacher and take his hand and say these words, “Tell the congregation that they can!”
That’s what I have been doing - telling you that you can - that you can be free - free to be, free to be responsible, free to become.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Sermons, by Maxie Dunnam
Paul once again uses Scripture to counter the false gospel and persuade the Galatians. He applies the story of Abraham and his two wives, Hagar and Sarah, typologically or “figuratively” to make a spiritual point (4:24). The two women represent two covenants. The Jews were physical descen…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." 31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
His final appeal has perplexed many commentators. The use of the historical narrative concerning Hagar and Sarah coupled with the prophetic utterance of Isaiah (Isa. 54:1) appears to make Paul guilty of some specious scriptural interpretation. This may be an instance when our lack of specific acquaintance with all the dynamics of the Galatian situation hinders our ability to understand. (Possibly Paul’s approach discredits interpretations offered by the opponents?)
The “allegory” (4:24; NIV “figuratively”) stresses the main points of Paul’s previous arguments and thus stands as a good, if somewhat ironic, summation of the opponents’ errors. Utilizing an incident revolving around Abraham (likely one of the opponents’ favorite figures because of the institution of circumcision), Paul shows that, like the covenants of law and grace, Hagar and Sarah can be compared (literally “stand in the same line”) yet have some very different characteristics:
Hagar vs. Sarah
slave woman vs. free woman
son, physically born vs. son, born according to promise
Mount Sinai (old covenant) vs. (new covenant)
present Jerusalem, enslaved vs. Jerusalem above, free
The major difference between the two is of “kind,” not circ*mstance. Paul appears to be relying on the Galatians’ acquaintance with the historical narrative to point out the major factors in the story. One factor, which is unstated but certainly in view, is that the Hagar incident was not a necessary part of God’s plan and had not been included in the promise to Abraham (see Genesis 16). So also, the covenantal promises to Abraham had not included the law (which he already stated to have become necessary only because of human sin; see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20). Thus, rather than being discontinuous with the promises of Abraham, the gospel of grace is fully aligned with those original promises. As if to further enhance the point, Paul recites a prophecy of Isaiah concerning Israel’s restoration from the captivity of Babylon (Isa. 54:1). While the Israelites were few in number then (as the Gentile Christians are, relative to Jewish believers, at the time of writing), miraculous, God-ordained growth was promised.
Finally, then, as in their situation, the son under slavery persecuted the son of promise (Gal. 4:29). The opponents are clearly portrayed as operating outside the covenantal promises of God. Sarah’s statement in Genesis 21:10 conveniently allows Paul to imply not only that the opponents’ position should be rejected but also that the opponents themselves should be cast out (4:30), since the enslaved cannot inherit the promises with the free. Paul indicates that rather than being seen as second-class citizens of the Mosaic covenant, the Galatian Gentile Christians have been fully accepted as children and heirs (they are Isaac; 4:28; see Gal. 3:7) of the Abrahamic covenant.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
4:21 Paul’s tone changes somewhat at this point, turning from a personal appeal back to an argument from Scripture (cf. 3:6–9) and to teaching what he and the Galatian believers already have in Christ. Paul begins with a direct address, Tell me, you who want to be under the law. The wording of the question critiques their desire, for Paul presents the law as something under which people are held.
The passage beginning in this verse and extending to 5:1 works with several themes that have already been introduced: giving birth (3:19), slavery (3:8), freedom (3:25), Abraham (3:6–8, 16–18, 29), the promise (3:14, 18, 21–22, 29), sonship (4:5–7), a covenant (cf. 3:15), persecution of believers in Christ by Jews (1:13), and inheritance (3:18; 4:1–7).
Themes and features from Genesis 21 appear in Galatians 4:21–5:1—Abraham, Abraham’s wife, Hagar, the two sons, promise, inheritance, and the quotation from Genesis 21:10. Other themes from the Genesis text appear in the rest of the letter—circumcision, the legitimate offspring. The fact that Paul has worked indirectly with Genesis 21 throughout the letter and now deals with it head on suggests that it has been a key text for the circumcisers’ argument. The Galatians were Gentiles and so would not have known much of the Jewish writings unless they had been taught them in the context of their new religion. That Genesis 21 is so central to the letter, both implicitly and explicitly, suggests that Paul feels constrained to respond to an interpretation of it being promulgated by the rival evangelists.
The twice-repeated phrase “for it is written” (vv. 22, 27) and the question “but what does the Scripture say?” (v. 30) indicate that now Paul takes his primary task to be scriptural interpretation. He faces the challenge of undoing the rival evangelists’ interpretation of the passage, which most likely made more plain sense than the one he presents. This may be why he speaks of his interpretation as figurative (4:24). The rival evangelists could point to Genesis 21 in support of their argument that inheriting the promise of Abraham entailed circumcision. Only Isaac, the circumcised son, carries on Abraham’s line.
4:22–23 Paul launches into an interpretation of the scriptural passage that the troublemakers had been using to promote their cause. He begins by noting that Abraham had two sons and that the difference between these two sons is that one was by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. He then moves to his figurative interpretation by explaining that the son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. In the Greek the phrase “born in the ordinary way” is “born according to the flesh (sarx).” While the Genesis text does understand Isaac to be the child of God’s promise (Gen. 21:1–3) Paul’s description of Ishmael as “born according to the flesh” goes beyond contrasting Isaac’s special birth with the normal birth of Ishmael. In the context of this passage, which uses dualistic categories, Paul’s use of “flesh” puts a particular slant on the story, casting the rivalry between Sarah and Hagar and Isaac and Ishmael in terms of the enmity between the promise or the Spirit (cf. 3:14) and the flesh, which is opposed to the Spirit (see esp. 5:16–25).
Paul’s reference to “promise” alludes to a concept that he and his readers agree is a good thing. The Galatians wish to be assured of receiving the promise of Abraham, and Paul builds a case that his gospel has secured the promise.
4:24–25 Paul takes the allegory further by speaking of the two women as two covenants. This clearly goes well beyond Genesis, but Paul has admitted that he speaks figuratively. He equates Hagar with Mount Sinai. In doing so he also says that this covenant bears children who are to be slaves, emphasizing this by stating that Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land in which Ishmael, the child of the slave woman, settled (Gen. 26:18). Whereas Judaism stresses the privilege that comes from the law, Paul here uses the Jewish Scriptures to say the opposite: the Jewish covenant enslaves. Going on with his allegory, Paul states that there is a correspondence between Hagar (i.e., Mount Sinai) and the present city of Jerusalem, a city in slavery with her children. The word corresponds (systoicheō) is built on the same root as the word translated “basic principles” in 4:3 and 9. It means “stand in the same line.” Paul’s point is that the Galatian congregation chose the wrong line to stand in when they agreed to be influenced by the present Jerusalem.
In Galatians the word covenant appears only here and in Paul’s illustration in Galatians 3:15–17. The word is especially fitting in the context of dealing with the Abraham tradition, for in the Septuagint the same word appears in the story of God establishing his covenant with Abraham and requiring from Abraham circumcision (Gen. 17:7–14).
Paul’s statement concerning two covenants would have been shocking to Jewish sensibilities. First, while the Jewish tradition held that God had made several covenants with Israel, among them the covenant with Noah, the covenant with Abraham, the covenant with Moses, covenants with Josiah and Nehemiah, the covenant with David, and the promise of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31–4; see also Rom. 9:4, which has the word “covenant” in the plural), these events were understood within the broad category of the Jewish religion as a religion of the covenant. In Judaism there was one covenant, just as for Paul there was only one gospel. Second, Paul argues that there is a covenant that does not require circumcision. For Jews the word covenant was almost synonymous with circumcision (see particularly Gen. 17:10).
4:26 The name and symbol of Jerusalem appear to have had a strategic position in the rhetoric of the rival evangelists and of Paul (see esp. 1:13–2:21). The troublemakers were no doubt claiming that the authority of the Jerusalem church stood behind their gospel. Paul is willing to concede that his opponents may have the present Jerusalem on their side, but he asserts that he too can claim the backing of Jerusalem—the Jerusalem that is above, that is free, that is our mother.
Paul assures his readers that they already have all they need through faith in Christ when he supplements the metaphor of a son inheriting the father’s will with the image of the “Jerusalem above” as the mother of believers. The statement is a simple declarative one in which Paul states what he considers to be a fact: his converts have been born from the free woman, which is to say that they are the ones “born as the result of a promise” (4:23). It follows that the Galatians should stop seeking the promise through the present Jerusalem, which can offer only the inheritance of slavery (cf. 4:24–5).
4:27 Paul supports his interpretation with a quotation from the Septuagint of Isaiah 54:1. Even though in Genesis it is Hagar, not Sarah, who is unmarried, Sarah is the referent for the barren woman. The “Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” is also a reference to Sarah (v. 26).
The quotation uses the imperative mood, commanding the “barren woman” to break forth and cry aloud. As Paul has just stated that he and his converts share the Jerusalem above as their mother (4:26), he may be using this text to encourage his readers to recognize and participate in rejoicing over the miraculous birth that is theirs. The underlying theme of who is a legitimate child, which has surfaced at various places in the letter (e.g., 3:29–4:7), is again in evidence. While the agitators maybe characterizing the Galatians’ mother as unmarried and the Galatians as illegitimate children, Paul is saying that their mother has received her promise of numerous children, and they should see themselves as part of the fulfillment of that promise.
Since Paul has earlier spoken of himself as birthing the Galatians (4:19), he may be employing the quotation from Isaiah to refer also to himself. He is shouting forth that his children are the children of the promise.
4:28 Paul states his meaning plainly. The allegorical utterance of Scripture can be applied directly to the Galatians: they, like Isaac, are children of promise. Paul’s interpretive boldness in declaring that his uncircumcised converts are kin to Isaac, who was circumcised on the eight day (Gen. 21:4), is in line with his conviction that his gospel and his converts manifest the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.
4:29 Continuing to apply the scriptural story to the current situation—it is the same now—Paul makes the point that Ishmael (the son born in the ordinary way) persecuted Isaac (the son born by the power of the Spirit). The contrast of the child born in the ordinary way and the one born by the power of the Spirit resonates with the contrast Paul set up in 4:23, although there the second child was “born as the result of a promise.”
The Genesis story contains no reference to Ishmael persecuting Isaac or to the Spirit, but Paul is applying the text of Scripture to the text of life. Having identified his readers with Isaac, he maintains that they are being persecuted by Ishmael, who in Paul’s mind likely corresponds primarily to the Jewish Christian troublemakers and perhaps secondarily to Jews in general (4:24–5). As is clear from 4:17, Paul understands the influence of the rival evangelists on his converts as a form of harassment.
Paul sets up a parallelism here with the previous statement, so that “children of promise” are equated with the son born “according to the power of the Spirit.” This is typical of the correspondence Paul makes throughout the letter between the promise and the Spirit (e.g., 3:14). In the remainder of Galatians the focus will shift from the promise to an increasing attention on the Spirit.
4:30 Paul cites Sarah’s expression of distress over whether Ishmael might be included in the inheritance (Gen. 21:10). As Paul has made it plain that he is using the Scripture in direct reference to the Galatians’ own circ*mstances, his question what does the Scripture say? implicitly includes the words “to us.” Paul takes Sarah’s command that Hagar and Ishmael be driven out as a command on target for the Galatians. The inheritance belongs to his converts, and it shall not be shared with those who preach a different gospel.
The quotation dramatizes the choice before the Galatians. Through association with the rival evangelists Paul’s converts are identified with Hagar and Ishmael, which means they are the ones driven out and excluded from Abraham’s inheritance.
4:31 In order to be sure his readers understand, Paul declares we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. Like Isaac, the Galatians are Abraham’s heirs. The troublemakers were undoubtedly suggesting that unless Paul’s Gentile converts followed the law they were not part of the people of God, but Paul says the opposite.
5:1 The means by which the Gentile Galatians have become children of the free woman is through Christ. This is another way of saying what Paul said earlier—that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (3:13). Paul declares that the purpose of Christ’s work was for freedom. The concept of freedom, which is a basic theme of Galatians, is connected throughout Paul’s letters primarily with freedom from: freedom from the law (Rom. 7:3–4), from sin (Rom. 6:18–22), or from death (Rom. 8:2). Freedom is also equated with the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17) and is used as a way to describe the Christian life (Gal. 2:4). In an expansive command, Paul directs his readers to stand firm against the influence of the rival evangelists. Underscoring the point he has made repeatedly, Paul charges his converts not to put themselves in a position of submitting to a yoke of slavery. To such a fate, Paul warns, his readers’ attraction to the alternative gospel leads.
Throughout the letter Paul has described the adding of law to faith and the Galatians’ former life (4:8–9) as enslavement, which is why he can warn that the Galatians’ attraction to the rival evangelists’ message will mean that they are slaves once again.
Additional Notes
4:21 See A. T. Lincoln, who notes that this Scripture “is being used by [Paul’s] opponents to their own advantage” (Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought With Special Reference to His Eschatology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], p. 12). See also C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr \'7bPaul Siebeck\'7d, 1976]), pp. 1–16.
4:24 The word figuratively is the translation of the compound Greek word allēgoroumena, which means “say something else” and is often translated as “allegory.” The Greek form is participial and might best be translated “allegorical sayings.” In the Greco-Roman world a respected way to interpret sacred or ancient tradition was to regard its sayings as allegorical, that is, as referring to something not immediately evident from the text itself. Philo used allegory extensively. The following rabbinical saying describes the interpretive mind-set that employs allegory: “As the hammer causes many sparks to fly, so the word of Scripture has a manifold sense” (in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 34a; quoted from F. Büschsel, “allēgoreō,” TDNT 1:260–64, esp. p. 263). Paul demonstrates an allegorical interpretive approach elsewhere in his letters (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:8–10; 10:1–11), although nowhere else does he designate his interpretation an allegory.
4:25 The statement Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia has several variant readings in the manuscripts, among the most important being those which leave out the name “Hagar” and read simply, “For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.” The NIV’s reading is the more difficult one and so more likely original. Some scholars have attempted to explain Paul’s meaning by pointing out that the Hebrew word for Hagar has similarities to an Arabic word meaning rock and so have suggested that here Paul is saying “Hagar means mountain in Arabia.” Paul has, however, stated that he is approaching the whole issue figuratively, and so there is no need to make his interpretation more straightforward than he himself felt the need to do.
Arabia is not only the place associated in the Genesis narrative with the descendants of Ishmael (Gen. 25:18) but also the place Paul went after his call and conversion (Gal. 1:17).
The antecedent of the pronoun “her” in the phrase her children refers to Jerusalem and to Hagar, the meaning being “Jerusalem, like Hagar, is in slavery with her children” (Longenecker, Galatians, p. 213).
4:26 The concept of Jerusalem that is above was not unfamiliar to Judaism. Ezekiel is given a vision of a heavenly Jerusalem that would be the model for the new Jerusalem to be built (Ezek. 40–48). But, while there is precedence in Jewish literature for the concept of a heavenly Jerusalem, such a Jerusalem was thought to be a counterpart to the earthly Jerusalem. Paul’s contrasting of the present with the heavenly Jerusalem appears to be unique (see Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, pp. 18–22).
The Jerusalem that is above has a future and a present referent. It is to be understood within the context of hope (vv. 27–28; see W. Horbury, “Land, Sanctuary and Worship,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context [ed. J. Barclay and J. Sweet; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], pp. 207–24) and of present reality (v. 26; “she is our mother”). Paul’s claim that the heavenly Jerusalem is now present resides, as Lincoln has noted, within the apocalyptic framework. Lincoln comments, “as in the apocalyptic and Qumran references what is to be revealed at the end can be thought of as already existing” (Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 21). Such a claim on Paul’s part corresponds to his affirmation that Christ’s death delivered believers “from the present evil age” (1:4). Paul is working with apocalyptic categories (see Isa. 65:17–25) and framing the life of believers within the birth of the new age: a moment in time in which the present and future are uniquely conjoined.
The Jewish Scriptures could refer to Jerusalem as a mother (e.g., Isa. 49:14–15; 51:18; Ps. 87:5; cf. 2 Esdras 10:7), as is demonstrated in Paul’s citation from Isaiah (54:1) in the following verse.
4:27 The Greek term barren woman in Isa. 54:1 [LXX] is found also in Gen. 11:30 [LXX], where it refers to Sarah. This particular text was used in Jewish writings that spoke of eschatological hopes (see Targum Isaiah on 54:1) for a restored Jerusalem.
4:29 While no OT Scripture describes Ishmael persecuting Isaac, the Hebrew word for “playing” in Gen. 21:9 could also denote “mocking.” On the basis of this meaning later Jewish interpretive writings contain stories of Ishmael harassing Isaac. See Longenecker (Galatians, pp. 200–206) for rabbinic references.
4:30 The words “free woman” are not found in the Septuagint version of Gen. 21:10. Paul appears to have added them so as to clarify his application of the text.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by L. Ann Jervis, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Abram is a well-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen. 11:25 25:11. Abram’s name (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen. 17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of many nations.”
The narrative account in Genesis details one hundred years of Abraham’s life and moves quickly through the first seventy-five years of events. In just a few verses (11:26–31) we learn that Abram was the son of Terah, the brother of Haran and Nahor, the husband of the barren Sarai (later Sarah), and the uncle of Lot, the son of Haran, who died in Ur of the Chaldees. The plot line marks significant events in Abraham’s life chronologically. He left Harran at the age of 75 (12:4), was 86 when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16), 99 when the Lord appeared to him (17:17) and when he was circumcised (17:24), 100 when Sarah gave birth to Isaac (21:5), and 175 when he died (25:7). In summary, the biblical narrator paces the reader quickly through the story in such a way as to highlight a twenty-five-year period of Abraham’s life between the ages of 75 and 100.
The NT features Abraham in several significant ways. The intimate connection between God and Abraham is noted in the identification of God as “the God of Abraham” in Acts 7:32 (cf. Exod. 3:6). The NT also celebrates the character of Abraham as a man of faith who received the promise (Gal. 3:9; Heb. 6:15). Abraham is most importantly an example of how one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:1, 12) and an illustration of what it means to walk by faith (James 2:21, 23).
Those who exercise faith in the living God, as did Abraham, are referred to as “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Regarding the covenant promises made to Abraham in the OT, the NT writers highlight the promises of seed and blessing. According to Paul, the seed of Abraham is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those who believe in Christ are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). In a similar way, those who have Abraham-like faith are blessed (3:9). The blessing imparted to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through the redemption of Christ and is associated with the impartation of the Spirit (3:14).
A large peninsula lying between the Red Sea on the west and the Persian Gulf on the east. In the Bible the term is actually seldom used (2Chron. 9:14; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:24; Ezek. 27:21; 30:5; Gal. 1:17; 4:25), and when it is, it refers more to the general area than to any specific group of people or geographic location. It seems to stand as a designation for that expanse of land that lies to the south and east of Canaan and the Transjordan peoples. On several occasions the term “Arabs” is used to designate the people from those regions (2Chron. 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7; Neh. 4:7; Acts 2:11). Elsewhere they are referred to as “eastern peoples” (Gen. 29:1; Judg. 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10) or “people of the East” (1Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; Jer. 49:28; Ezek. 25:4, 10). In Gen. 25:6 Arabia is referred to as the “land of the east,” and in Isa. 2:6 simply as “the East” (although this may refer simply to Syria and Mesopotamia).
In the NT, Arabs were among those present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11). After his conversion Paul journeyed to Arabia (Gal. 1:17), by which is meant the Nabatean kingdom, stretching from the Transjordan southwest toward the Sinai Peninsula. Interestingly, Paul’s reference to Mount Sinai as being in Arabia (Gal. 4:25) may suggest a location other than the traditional one of the Sinai Peninsula—for example, across the Gulf of Aqaba (the eastern arm of the Red Sea) in or near Midian (see Exod. 2:113:3)—although there is no consensus on this matter.
A barren woman is one who is infertile and without children. The biblical world placed great value on the blessing of having children. Being without children brought despair. This can be seen in Rachel’s despondent plea (Gen. 30:1) and in the fact that wives would offer a servant in their place to bear a child (16:3; 30:3, 9).
In most of the stories about women and infertility, God reversed their circ*mstances: Sarah (Gen. 11:30), Rebekah (25:21), Rachel (30:22), Samson’s mother (Judg. 13:2 3), Hannah (1Sam. 1:2), the Shunammite (2Kings 4:16), Elizabeth (Luke 1:7). For Michal, barrenness appears as a punishment (2Sam. 6:23).
Caring for the barren is part of God’s praiseworthy caring for the needy (Ps. 113:5–9).
Births in the ancient world were the domain of women. The women who bore children were often assisted in the birthing process by midwives (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:1520).
Many women utilized a birthing stool (Exod. 1:16). Upon birth, the newborn often was washed with water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in cloths (Ezek. 16:4; Luke 2:7, 12). The OT required women to undergo a rite of purification following childbirth (Exod. 13:2, 20; 34:20; Lev. 12:6–8; Luke 2:22–24). This purification lasted forty days after the birth of a son and eighty days after the birth of a daughter and concluded with the sacrifice of both a burnt offering and a sin offering.
Birthing was valued, and women who were considered to be infertile often faced great shame (1Sam. 1:10–11; Luke 1:25). Pain in childbirth was associated with the sin of Eve (Gen. 3:16), and conversely, absence of pain was interpreted as a sign that a woman was particularly righteous. According to Josephus, Moses was born with no pain to his mother, and the Protevangelium of James indicates the same about Mary’s labor with Jesus.
The Bible sometimes employs the language of birth as a spiritual metaphor. In John 3:3–6 Jesus instructs Nicodemus about the need for spiritual birth by explaining that he must be born again. In Rom. 8:22 Paul describes the whole of creation as experiencing the pain of childbirth as it awaits redemption, and in Gal. 4:19 he says that he is in labor for a second time with the Galatians as he desires the formation of Christ in them.
There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:111; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).
Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1Tim. 1:10–11).
Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).
The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.
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).
The Egyptian maidservant whom Sarah offered to her husband, Abraham, as a solution to her own infertility (Gen. 16). When Hagar became pregnant, she treated Sarah disrespectfully, resulting in Hagar’s dismissal. On instruction from the angel of the Lord, Hagar returned and bore Ishmael when Abraham was eighty-six years old. While Hagar received God’s promise that her son would have many descendants, he was not the one through whom God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled (Gen. 12:13; 15:4; 17:19). Following the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, the tension between the two women resulted in Sarah sending Hagar and Ishmael off into the desert, where God reaffirmed his commitment to Ishmael (Gen. 21:9–19).
Paul uses Hagar and Sarah to represent two covenants. Hagar represents the covenant given on Mount Sinai, the law that brings slavery and characterizes the earthly Jerusalem. The child born to Sarah as a result of God’s promise represents the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, who are free (Gal. 4:22–27).
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:617). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:111). The OT provides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.
New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Along with Abraham and Jacob, Isaac is a central character in the narratives of Gen. 1235. Isaac is the offspring of Abraham and Sarah, the fulfillment of a promise from God of an heir for Abraham (15:4). The promise of offspring is one component in a set (protection and land being some of the others), the provisions of a covenant between God and the patriarchs (12:1–3; 17:1–8; 26:2–5). The name “Isaac” is associated with the verb for “laugh” (21:3–7), referring to Sarah’s reaction upon hearing the promise of a child coming well beyond her childbearing years (18:9–15). Sarah’s incredulity, and Abraham’s sympathy to it, may be witnessed by their attempt to enact fulfillment to the promise through the insemination of Hagar, Sarah’s slave (16:1–4, 16).
In the narratives of Gen. 12–35 Isaac is the least prominent of the patriarchs. The main event of his life is encapsulated in the incident known as the Akedah, the “binding” (22:1–19). Abraham demonstrates his loyalty to God by complying with a command to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. After an initial inquiry about the absence of a sacrificial beast, Isaac (apparently) passively follows Abraham’s directions in compliance with God’s will. A divine emissary, however, halts Abraham’s actions just prior to the slaying of Isaac.
The procurement of Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, by Abraham’s servant is found in Gen. 24:1–67. Like Abraham, Isaac describes his wife as a sister in order to deflect danger to his person (26:6–11; cf. 12:10–16; 20:1–18). Rebekah bears two sons to Isaac, Esau and Jacob (25:21–26). Through the instigation and cooperation of Rebekah, Jacob tricks Isaac into conferring a blessing upon him, one originally intended for Esau (27:1–30).
The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.
The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:115; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).
Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.
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 mountain where Moses met with God and received the law and instructions for building the tabernacle. It is important to note that Sinai is sometimes referred to as Horeb.
The exact location of the mountain cannot be determined with certainty. Complicating matters is the fact that the desert and the peninsula on which the mountains sit are both called “Sinai.” Furthermore, although some have speculated that the mountain must be a volcano, given the description of smoke coming from the mountain and the earthquakes (Exod. 19:16, 18), this suggestion is of little specific help because many of the mountains in this region at one time were active volcanoes. Several locations for the mountain have been suggested.
A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:4448; 1Cor. 15:3–8).
Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.
The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.
Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.
In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1Cor. 15:48–57; 2Cor. 4:14; 1Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1John 1:9).
The term “Scripture” (graphē) appears fifty-one times in the NT, used in reference to the OT. Sometimes the biblical writers cite a specific OT text as Scripture, while at other times they refer to Scripture in a more comprehensive manner.
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.
In the Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:2628. God created “man” in the plural, male and female, and commanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it. Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created in the image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would be thought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the first man the image of God, but the first woman participates in the image as well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and it suggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.
Genesis records that the human race fell through the instrumentality of a man, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, not the man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying a word. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race. Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife” (Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain in childbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, but it appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership and will be perpetually frustrated.
Often in the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children. Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with her sister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb” is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is full of them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3: “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.”
In Genesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at the disposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservants became surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10). Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so she gave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finally resulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she bore to Abraham.
In the beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husband and wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man from Cain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage (Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have more than one wife, the household discontent and strife are what is highlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elder is to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1Tim. 3:2; ESV, KJV: “the husband of one wife”), meaning monogamous.
The Torah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughters of Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so in Canaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israel daughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if there were no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num. 27:1–11).
When a man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vow was subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, but if he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she was married, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, then there was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as a man’s (Num. 30:1–16).
Sexual intercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as the act rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both must bathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrual discharge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or lay upon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She must wash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).
If a man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents provided evidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man was severely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her (otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her [Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to be put to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).
In the case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city, both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she had failed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented to sexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the man was killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, his punishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce (Deut. 22:23–29).
Numbers 5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that his wife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantal jealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.
In the Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what is expected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the only woman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to a deity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel (despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrew verb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge, however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera; Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this mission unless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that the prestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Another prominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidance when the law was rediscovered (2Kings 22:14).
Many biblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined by two midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21). Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts her trek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth 1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bears her name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and the women there have the distinction of being the first to witness the risen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized around Mary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape the early church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, calling them “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” and possibly even “apostle.”
Scripture also at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Eve handed the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israel worshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num. 25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women, directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba was a temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marred his career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved many foreign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile, the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreign wives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).
Women and marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things. Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationship with Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to human history in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned with righteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whor* Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). The consummation of the age is when one is judged and the other enters her eternal marital bliss.
The book of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolized by two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices of Woman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33) calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-blood temptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdom has her counterpart at the end of the book in the detailed description of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the woman who fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—the highest blessing of the wise.
Paul uses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of law versus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-set of slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by works of the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promised son, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, and freedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again, two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves, the other being God’s free people.
Direct Matches
Allegoryis the use of symbolism to express or represent certain truths. Itcan be understood in two different ways.
First,some writers intentionally express concepts that conceal behind theliteral meaning of their words a more significant meaning. Forexample, in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Hopefulhelps Christian see Christ again so that he may avoid the WickedGate. Similarly, the dark wood where Dante loses himself at thebeginning of the Divine Comedy is intended by the author as a symbolof sin, and the three animals that he encounters there are symbolsfor three particular sins. In both cases, the author intentionallypresents the true meaning of the story through figures or symbols.This use of allegory is sometimes described as a prolonged metaphor.
Thesecond way allegory can be understood is as a perspective taken up bythe interpreter or reader. Here the reader assumes that the text hasa secondary or hidden meaning underlying the primary, literal meaningof the words. Often, but not always, this kind of allegoricalinterpretation ignores the literal sense of the words and at timesdenies the usefulness of the literal meaning all together.
Allegoryin the Bible.Some passages of Scripture come very close to the first use ofallegory: in Ezek. 17:2 God instructs the prophet to “set forthan allegory [NASB, NRSV: “riddle”] and tell the house ofIsrael a parable.” In the account that follows the prophetcarefully explains each element of the story: the first eagle isBabylon, the twigs carried to a land of trade are the captiveIsraelites taken to Babylon, and so forth. In Ezek. 24:2–14 theprophet gives a similar account, this time pointing out Israel’sunfaithfulness.
Jesus’parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1–9 pars.) comes very close tothis kind of allegory because each feature of the story is explainedby Jesus to convey his teaching regarding the kingdom (13:18–23pars.). However, care must be taken not to confuse the literarycategory of parable with this type of allegory. A parable is aparticular type of story that only at times bears a resemblance to anallegory.
Allegoricalinterpretation in the early church.The early church fathers, facing the need to distinguish Christianityfrom Judaism, focused on the person and work of Christ as a means ofreading the Bible (one might call this “christocentric”reading). They explained that the Jews could read the OT and yetreject Jesus as the Messiah because they read according to the letterand not according to the Spirit (“for the letter kills, but theSpirit gives life” [2 Cor. 3:6]). Therefore, the churchfathers claimed that the spiritual interpretation of the Bibleconveyed its true meaning—the sense that Jesus is the Sonof God.
TheAlexandrian fathers and allegorization. Clement,traditionally the third bishop of Rome (c. AD 96), provides a veryearly example of Christian allegorical interpretation. Referring tothe story of Rahab and the Israelite spies in Josh. 2, he argues thatthe scarlet cord is symbolic of a spiritual reality: “And inaddition they gave her a sign, that she should hang from her housesomething scarlet—making it clear that through the blood of theLord redemption will come to all who believe and hope in God”(1 Clem. 12:7). Another classic example of allegoricalinterpretation of the OT is the almost universally accepted earlyChristian understanding of Song of Songs. According to thisinterpretation, the literal sense of the song (romantic love) couldnot be its real meaning. Rather, the text refers to the relationshipbetween Christ and his church; thus, the woman represents the church,and the man represents Christ. The passage “He brought me tohis banqueting table, and his banner over me is love” (Song 2:4KJV) refers not to a romantic encounter between lovers but rather toChrist and his delight in the church.
Origen,an early Christian leader and influential biblical scholar fromAlexandria, argued that every passage in the Bible had a threefoldsense, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit: the literal, moral,and spiritual. Origen usually began with the literal sense of thewords, but he insisted that one should move on to the higher sense ofthe text (moral and spiritual) because it leads the believer closerto Christ. The only way to grasp the spiritual sense of the text,according to Origen, is through revelation. He also was one of thefirst to claim that Paul himself used allegorical interpretation: inhis identification of the wilderness rock with Christ (1 Cor.10:1–4) and of Sarah and Hagar with two covenants (Gal.4:22–26). It is debated whether these are examples of allegoryor of typology; much depends on how one defines both terms. Many drawa firm distinction between allegory, which derives from acorrespondence of ideas, and typology, which derives from acorrespondence between historical events. Even in contemporary debatesome insist that these passages rely more upon typologicalconnections than allegorical ones.
Allegoricalversus typological interpretation.In contrast to those church fathers who followed Origen and othersfrom Alexandria, the fathers of Antioch, especially Theodore ofMopsuestia (AD 350–428) and John Chrysostom (c. AD354–407), opposed finding the spiritual sense of the text bymeans of allegorical interpretation. Rather, these interpretersargued that the spiritual sense of the Bible is not allegorical butis to be found in the literal sense itself. Theodore, when challengedto account for the use of the term “allegory” (Gal. 4:24KJV, RSV, NRSV), argued that Paul used it to indicate a historicalcorrespondence; that is, Paul was interpreting the OT typologically.
Summary.Positively, allegory emphasizes that the Bible should be approachedspiritually, and that it should find practical application in thelife of the believer. Often allegory made it possible for the churchto apply obscure passages of the Bible that otherwise might have beenignored as irrelevant. Negatively, allegory largely removes the textof the Bible from history and fosters irresponsible and fancifulinterpretations. See also Typology.
A large peninsula lying between the Red Sea on the west andthe Persian Gulf on the east. In the Bible the term is actuallyseldom used (2 Chron. 9:14; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:24; Ezek. 27:21;30:5; Gal. 1:17; 4:25), and when it is, it refers more to the generalarea than to any specific group of people or geographic location. Itseems to stand as a designation for that expanse of land that lies tothe south and east of Canaan and the Transjordan peoples. On severaloccasions the term “Arabs” is used to designate thepeople from those regions (2 Chron. 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7;Neh. 4:7; Acts 2:11). Elsewhere they are referred to as “easternpeoples” (Gen. 29:1; Judg. 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10) or “peopleof the East” (1 Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; Jer. 49:28; Ezek.25:4; 25:10). In Gen. 25:6 Arabia is referred to as the “landof the east,” and in Isa. 2:6 simply as “the East”(although this may refer simply to Syria and Mesopotamia).
Clearly,Arabia is a presence in the Scripture, although its role is notnearly as dominant or even as clear as that of other nations orregions, whether superpowers such as Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt orlesser nations such as the Ammonites or the variousCanaanite peoples. Still, the importance of Arabia should not beoverlooked.
Likemany other peoples in the OT, how these people are evaluated bybiblical writers is diverse, which is compounded by the fact that thevarious referents for “Arabs” or “Arabia” canonly really be determined, if at all, from a close examination of thecontext. Nevertheless, we see that “all the kings of Arabia andthe governors of the territories” gave gifts to Solomon(2 Chron. 9:14). The Arabs are also said to bring tribute toJehoshaphat (17:11). Elsewhere in the historical books theirrelationship with the Israelites is more hostile (e.g., 2 Chron.21:16; 22:1; Neh. 4:7).
Neitherdo they escape the attention of the prophets. In Isa. 21:13–16their troubles are predicted at the hands of other nations (notablythe Babylonians and the Assyrians, both of whom waged battles atlater points in Israel’s history). Isaiah also refers toDedanites and Kedar, the first being an Arabian tribe and the seconda home of Bedouin tribes. Both references assume their nomadiclifestyle. According to Jer. 25:24, they will be among many nationswho will drink of the cup of God’s wrath. According to Ezek.30:5, Arabia will fall by the sword (Nebuchadnezzar’s) as oneof several allies of Egypt.
Inthe NT, Arabs were among those present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11).After his conversion Paul journeyed to Arabia (Gal. 1:17), by whichis meant the Nabatean kingdom, stretching from the Transjordansouthwest toward the Sinai Peninsula. Interestingly, Paul’sreference to Mount Sinai as being in Arabia (Gal. 4:25) may suggest alocation other than the traditional one of the Sinai Peninsula—forexample, across the Gulf of Aqaba (the eastern arm of the Red Sea) inor near Midian (see Exod. 2:11–3:3)—although there is noconsensus on this matter.
The Egyptian maidservant whom Sarah offered to her husband,Abraham, as a solution to her own infertility (Gen. 16). When Hagarbecame pregnant, she treated Sarah disrespectfully, resulting inHagar’s dismissal. On instruction from the angel of the Lord,Hagar returned and bore Ishmael when Abraham was eighty-six yearsold. While Hagar received God’s promise that her son would havemany descendants, he was not the one through whom God’spromises to Abraham would be fulfilled (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:4;17:19). Following the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, thetension between the two women resulted in Sarah sending Hagar andIshmael off into the desert, where God reaffirmed his commitment toIshmael (Gen. 21:9–19).
Pauluses Hagar and Sarah to represent two covenants. Hagar represents thecovenant given on Mount Sinai, the law that brings slavery andcharacterizes the earthly Jerusalem. The child born to Sarah as aresult of God’s promise represents the citizens of the heavenlyJerusalem, who are free (Gal. 4:22–27).
The central city and capital of ancient Israel. The originalmeaning of the name probably is “founded by [the Canaanite god]Salem.” The Amarna letters refer to a Beth-Shalem, and itsfirst reference in the Bible is Salem (Gen. 14:18). Throughout itshistory, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus,Mount Moriah, and the City of David.
Thename “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT,particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’sdealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewedcollectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and hissovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’sjudgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:1–15;26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents thehope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8;60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag.2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NTauthors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms.Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal.4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of thenew covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24).In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the futurekingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).
Jerusalemis located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sealevel. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expandedand contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are twomajor ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the TyropoeonValley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and northof this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later thetemple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, sincethe only water source is the Gihon Spring, located in the KidronValley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they wereused for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east isthe Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by theKidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central RidgeRoute, separated by the Hinnom Valley.
EarlyHistory through the United Monarchy
Theearliest occupation was near the Gihon Spring, where Chalcolithicpottery (c. 3500 BC) and structures dating to the Early Bronze Age(c. 3000–2800 BC) were found. The Bronze Age city is mentionedin the Ebla tablets, Execration texts, and the Amarna letters.Melchizedek, the king of Salem, received gifts from Abraham andblessed him (Gen. 14). Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac as asacrifice on one of the mountains of Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:2), thelocation where Solomon later built the temple (2Chron. 3:1).The Jebusite city of the Bronze Age extended over the lower part ofthe Eastern Hill for about twelve acres, with a population of aboutone thousand.
AfterJoshua made a treaty with the Gibeonites, the king of Jerusalem,Adoni-Zedek, formed a coalition of five kings to attack Gibeon.Joshua defeated this coalition and killed the kings (Josh. 10). TheCanaanite inhabitants of Jerusalem are referred to as Amorites (Josh.10:5) and as Jebusites (Judg. 1:21; 1Chron. 11:4).
WhenDavid became king over both Israel and Judah, he made Jerusalem thepolitical, spiritual, and administrative center of his kingdom.Jerusalem became synonymous with David and was called the “Cityof David.” Transferring the ark to Jerusalem made it the newreligious center for the Israelites. David conquered the Jebusitestronghold through the tsinnor, possibly a water tunnel (2Sam.5:6–8; 1Chron. 11:4–7). He took up residence in thecity and began an extensive building program, but his vision ofJerusalem as the religious center was not fully realized until hisson Solomon became king and built the temple.
Solomongreatly expanded the city by building fortifications, the temple, andthe royal palace (1Kings 7–9). This was the first initialexpansion of the city as Solomon extended the city northward alongthe Eastern Hill, up the Ophel to the site of the present-day TempleMount. This expanded the city to about thirty-two acres, with apopulation of around five thousand. During the united monarchy,Jerusalem became the center of Israelite administration and religion.All Israelites were to come to Jerusalem three times a year forreligious festivals. Solomonic Jerusalem became the foundation forthe imagery bestowed on the city by the psalms (e.g., Pss. 46; 48;76; 84; 87; 122; 125; 132). Although major excavations were carriedout in the 1980s in the City of David, little is knownarchaeologically about the city of that period.
Fromthe Divided Monarchy to the Exile
Duringthe divided monarchy, Jerusalem was attacked by foreign forces.Jerusalem was attacked by Shishak of Egypt at the end of the tenthcentury BC (1Kings 14:25–26), by Syria and northernIsrael during the ninth century BC (2Kings 12:17; 15:37), andby Sennacherib of Assyria during the seventh century BC (2Kings18:13). Several Judean kings undertook building projects. Uzziahfortified Jerusalem by adding towers to the city walls (2Chron.26:9), and Jotham built the upper gate of the temple (2Chron.27:3).
Hezekiahgreatly expanded Jerusalem. The city doubled in size during his reignas it extended to the Western Hill (Upper City). The city thenencompassed about 125 acres, with a population of about twenty-fivethousand. It had expanded due to the influx of immigrants from thenorth when the capital of Samaria fell to the Assyrians. Hezekiahreinforced the Millo, built and rebuilt walls, and erected towers ashe extended the walls to encompass the Western Hill. In preparationfor the siege by Sennacherib, he constructed an underground watersystem to bring water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloaminside the city (2Kings 20:20; 2Chron. 32:2–4, 30;Isa. 22:11). Manasseh refortified Jerusalem with the construction ofa new outer wall (2Chron. 33:14). Jerusalem was invaded whenJehoiakim rebelled and was finally destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC.Prophets during the divided monarchy spoke of the destruction ofJerusalem, but also of its exaltation in later times (e.g., Isa.2:2–4; 24:23; Jer. 7:14; Mic. 3:12).
Archaeologicalexcavations have revealed much about Jerusalem during the time of thelater Judean kings. Several walls, towers, and fortificationsattributed to Hezekiah have been excavated in the Jewish Quarter.Hezekiah’s tunnel and the Siloam Inscription have beendiscovered, highlighting the preparations made by Hezekiah for theAssyrian siege. Several quarries and tombs have been found on theslopes of the Mount of Olives and the western slope (Ketef Hinnom) ofthe Hinnom Valley. In one of the Ketef Hinnom tombs, a silver amuletcontaining the earliest known biblical text (Num. 6:24–26) wasfound. Evidence of the Babylonian destruction was found inexcavations of the Jewish Quarter and the City of David. A group ofbullae (fired clay impressions) was found with the name of “Gemariahben-Shaphan,” probably the scribe mentioned in Jer. 36.
FromPersian to Roman Rule
Afterthe Persian conquest of Babylon (539 BC), CyrusII allowed theJews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Judah became thePersian province Yehud, and Jerusalem was the administrative center.Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judea by Artaxerxes in 445 BC.Nehemiah undertook a hasty rebuilding project against the wishes ofthe local population (Neh. 2:19; 4:7). The rebuilt city wasconstricted to the area of the Eastern Hill, comprising some thirtyacres, with a population of about forty-five hundred.
Alexanderthe Great captured Jerusalem in 332 BC. This victory marked the endof Persian rule. Following Alexander’s death, his empire wasdivided between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria.PtolemyI captured Jerusalem in 320 BC, but the Jerusalem templecontinued to be the center of local Jewish life and administration.The Seleucids defeated the Ptolemies and annexed Palestine around201–198 BC. The city and the temple were repaired during theirreign. During this period the Jews were struggling with theacceptance of Hellenistic culture. The high priest Jason favoredHellenization and transformed Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis (aGreek city-state). Jerusalem became known as Antiochia, and the cityexpanded to the eastern slope of the Western Hill (Upper City). Jasonbuilt a gymnasium (1Macc. 1:11–15; 2Macc. 4:9–17).The Maccabeans revolted, and AntiochusIV destroyed the walls ofJerusalem, erected a fortress (the Akra), and desecrated the temple.Judas Maccabeus liberated Jerusalem in 164 BC, and the temple waspurified and rededicated (1Macc. 4:36–55). Hasmonean rulelasted from 142 to 63 BC. Hasmonean Jerusalem occupied the Westernand Eastern Hills. The Upper City was joined to the Temple Mount byan arched bridge across the Tyropoeon Valley (Wilson’s Arch). Afortress (the Baris) was built northwest of the temple. The Romansconquered Jerusalem in 63 BC under the rule of Pompey and endedHasmonean rule.
TheTime of Jesus and the First Century AD
Jerusalemduring the time of Jesus was largely the product of Herod the Great’spolicies and building programs. Herod was a Roman vassal and broughtHellenistic culture to the city. He built an amphitheater and atheater. Jerusalem became a city divided between the wealthy of theUpper City and the poor in the Lower City. Herodian Jerusalem’spopulation was about forty thousand, and the city extended over 230acres, not including suburbs on the Mount of Olives and west of thecity. Herod’s main building activity was the complex on theTemple Mount. Herod built a massive podium over the northern summitof the Eastern Hill. This podium stood forty-five meters high abovethe bottom of the Kidron Valley. This formed a rectangular platformfor the temple that measured 144,000 square meters. Most of theretaining walls are visible today, and the best-known section is theWestern Wall. To the south of the Temple Mount complex was the RoyalStoa, and on the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress.
Archaeologicalresearch has uncovered several components and features of NTJerusalem. The temple rituals needed large amounts of water, andHerod built an elaborate water-delivery and storage system. Remainsof both subterranean and surface aqueducts are found from theBethlehem region to Jerusalem. Large water-storage pools are stillvisible today, such as the Serpent’s Pool in the Hinnom Valley,the Pool of the Towers of Amygdalon, the Sheep Pools, the Pool ofIsrael, as well as several other unnamed reservoirs and water-storagefeatures. Several segments of the city fortification walls were foundin various archaeological excavations, as well as remains of theAntonia Fortress and Herod’s Upper Palace with its three towersand adjacent Agora. Jewish Quarter excavations have revealed severalpalatial homes with various luxury goods, evidence of the wealth ofthe Upper City. These homes contained a courtyard surrounded by roomsand reception halls; several had private ritual baths. Excavations ofthe southern wall have revealed components of the Temple Mountcomplex, most notably the southern monumental stairway with theritual-bath complex building and the two entrances that led up to theTemple Mount. Several tombs and cemeteries have also been excavatedin the environs around the city.
Mostof Jesus’ ministry was spent in Galilee. He would have come toJerusalem at least three times each year to attend the majorfestivals. Of the Gospel writers, Luke most often referred toJerusalem and the temple as he framed his account of the deeds andteachings of Jesus. Although the events of Passion Week took place inJerusalem and its environs, the Gospels emphasize the events andteachings of Jesus, not the geography.
Theearly church started in Jerusalem with the events of Pentecost.Jerusalem was the origin and the center of the early church under theleadership of James. It seemed to serve as the center of theapostles’ authority, but the missionary zeal soon shifted theministry and focus of the church to the eastern Mediterranean.Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans under the direction ofTitus. Jerusalem has been a central place for the Christian faith,whose followers acknowledge the city as the place of the death andresurrection of Jesus. Jerusalem played a major role throughouthistory and has always been a center of pilgrimage for Christians.
Although essentially characterized by bearing offspring, amother is associated with much more in the Bible. Especiallyprominent are the characteristic ways in which a mother relates toher children: she tends to their needs (1Thess. 2:7), looksafter their welfare (1Kings 3:16–27), comforts them (Ps.131:2), and instructs them (Prov. 1:8; 31:1).
Motherhoodis held in high regard. Bearing a child is an occasion for rejoicing(Gen. 4:1; Ps. 113:9). A virtuous and industrious mother is praisedby her children and husband alike (Prov. 31:28). The Bible describesa mother both crowning a king (Song 3:11) and sitting beside histhrone (1Kings 2:19). The death of a mother brings extremesorrow (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 35:14). Furthermore, God’s promises areoften associated with the birth of a child (e.g., Gen. 3:15; 12:2–3;Judg. 13:3; Isa. 7:14). Mary is blessed among women as the mother ofJesus Christ (Luke 1:42–45). Finally, the Bible protects thedignity of a mother as it does that of the father. The law requireshonor and reverence for both father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Lev.19:3; Deut. 5:16) and condemns to death those who strike or curseeither parent (Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9).
Thereis also great concern that adult children look after the welfare oftheir parents as a means of honoring them. David makes provisions forhis parents as he flees from Saul (1Sam. 22:3–4). Jesuscondemns the Pharisees and the scribes for taking the resources duetheir parents and offering them as a gift to God instead (Matt.15:4–6). Even Jesus’ final act upon the cross is toensure the welfare of his mother by defining her relationship withthe Beloved Disciple as mother and son (John 19:26–27). On theother hand, Jesus makes clear that concern for one’s family issubordinate to discipleship to him (Matt. 10:37; Mark 3:35; Luke14:26).
Theword “mother” also carries symbolic or metaphoricalsenses. Sometimes the “mother” is a fitting example ofother things or persons like it, such as Babylon the Great as themother of prostitutes and earthly abominations (Rev. 17:5). In theextended analogy between Hosea’s marriage and God’srelationship to Israel, the nation is called a “mother,”and its inhabitants are her “children” (Hos. 2:4; 4:5;cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 50:12). The image of a mother may also refer to alarge city (2Sam. 20:19; Gal. 4:26).
A synonym of “strength.” “Power”often translates the Hebrew words koakh or ’az or the Greekword dynamis, all of which denote strength or might. The Hebrew wordyad (“hand”) may also denote power when it is used tospeak of the dominion of a ruler (e.g., 2Kings 17:7 [NASB:“hand of Pharaoh”; NIV: “power of Pharaoh”]).
Althoughhumans have a degree of power, God is omnipotent, all-powerful (Jer.32:17). He utilized his great power in creating the world (Jer.51:15; Rom. 1:20; Rev. 4:11). He has also displayed his power throughother mighty acts, such as delivering the Israelites from Egypt(Exod. 14:31; Deut. 9:26). The wisdom literature extols God’spower (Job 9:4; Pss. 20:6; 66:3; 147:5), as do the prophets (Isa.40:10; Jer. 27:5; Dan. 2:20; Nah. 1:3) and the letters of the NT(1Cor. 6:14; Eph. 1:18–21; Col. 2:10). God continues todisplay his power through the gospel (Rom. 1:16), not only inrescuing believers from their sins (1Cor. 1:24–25) butalso in empowering them to live holy lives (2Cor. 4:7).
TheHoly Spirit has acted and continues to act as the agent of God’spower (Judg. 14:6; 1Sam. 16:13; Acts 1:8). Just as the HolySpirit has done many powerful signs and wonders through Jesus and theapostles (Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:18–19), he gives rebirth to eachChristian through his power (Gal. 4:29). The Holy Spirit alsostrengthens Christians with power “so that Christ may dwell in[their] hearts through faith” (Eph. 3:17).
The term “Scripture” ( graphē)appears fifty-one times in the NT, used in reference to the OT.Sometimes the biblical writers cite a specific OT text as Scripture,while at other times they refer to Scripture in a more comprehensivemanner.
Mostreferences occur in the Gospels, in which Jesus details the natureand the extent of Scripture. Jesus opened the Scriptures from Mosesthrough all the prophets in order to explain everything about himselfas the anticipated Messiah (Luke 24:44–45). The propheticquality of Scripture is evidenced in OT passages that are referencedin the NT as being fulfilled in his birth, life, betrayal, death,burial, and resurrection.
Jesuscharacterized the Scriptures as the powerful source of eternal life(John 5:39; 7:38). They have abiding authority and cannot be broken(10:35). He highlighted the dynamic quality of the Scriptures when hesaid that they speak, testify, and declare.
InActs, Scripture is the authoritative source from which the apostlePaul explains the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (17:2;18:28). Apollos is distinguished as a man with a thorough knowledgeof Scripture, and the Bereans were known for their investigativeinquiry into the truthfulness of the Scriptures.
Thebook of Romans opens (1:2) and closes (16:25–26) withreferences to the gospel as Scripture. Throughout this letter Paulbroadens Scripture referents beyond Christ and his redemptive work toinclude the themes of divine power, the nature of belief, and theprophetic ministry of Elijah. Finally, Paul characterizes Scriptureas holy, prophetic, and intimately associated with the Lord himself.The Scriptures are a source not only of eternal life but also ofencouragement.
InGalatians, Scripture includes the prophetic anticipation of Gentileparticipation in the gospel (3:8). It is a convicting authority thatshows all people to be bound by sin and unbelief (3:22). Thehistorical narrative account of Gen. 21 is also regarded as Scriptureand used in an analogous typological manner (Gal. 4:21–31).
ThePastoral Letters and the book of James cite legal sections of the OTunder the heading of Scripture (1Tim. 5:18 [quoting Deut. 25:4;Lev. 19:13]; James 2:8). The most significant references to Scriptureare 2Tim. 3:16 and 2Pet. 1:20–21 because theydefine the origin, nature, and function of Scripture. In addition,2Tim. 3:16 details the sufficiency of Scripture in its abilityto teach, rebuke, correct, and train. In every period of history,Scripture is sufficient in extent and content to sustain people andnurture their relationship with God.
AncientNear East
Theancient Near East was a male-dominated culture in which, therefore,women were marginalized and treated more or less as property. Note,for example, Boaz’s question “Who does that young womanbelong to?” (Ruth 2:5). Women, of course, produce children, andthis power was prized. Women were also fit to engage in variousmundane tasks, but they were not trained for war or educated forservice in the royal court. Their role in society was subordinate andsecondary.
Inthe Epic of Gilgamesh, the wild and powerful Enkidu met a “wisewoman” who seduced him. Thereafter, Enkidu was tamed andweakened. She made a civilized man of him. In the Ugaritic legend ofDanil, Danil was unhappy because he had no sons. With the blessing ofthe gods, he married Hurriya, and had sons and daughters. Thus, sonsfulfilled Danil as much as they fulfilled the woman.
Butthe power to reproduce, which resides in the woman’s womb, alsowas mysterious and seemed to belong in the same category as otherforces of nature, such as the rebirth of life in the spring followingsterile winter. Thus, the ancient world was filled with goddesses ofgreat power. These goddesses at times also took on masculinecharacteristics, such as displaying great prowess in war; this isespecially true of Anat of Canaanite mythology.
ThroughoutIsrael’s sojourn in the Promised Land, there was anundercurrent of Canaanite-style goddess worship. In the period of thejudges, the Israelites worshiped the goddess Asherah (Judg. 6:25).Led astray by his wives, Solomon also worshiped the goddess (1Kings11:1–8). The “fertility cult” included ritual sexin places of worship. This eventually took place in the temple ofYahweh. Much of this seems to have been hom*osexual sex (2Kings23:7).
Creationof Woman
Inthe Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:26–28.God created “man” in the plural, male and female, andcommanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it.Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created inthe image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would bethought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the firstman the image of God, but the first woman participates in the imageas well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and itsuggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.
Genesisrecords that the human race fell through the instrumentality of aman, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, notthe man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbiddenfruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying aword. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race.Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife”(Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain inchildbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her(Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, butit appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership andwill be perpetually frustrated.
Throughoutthe remainder of Genesis, this judgment does not seem to unfold asexpected. Instead, men are shown to desire women. Jacob was willingto work seven years to get the beautiful Rachel as his wife, and whenhe was fooled into marrying her sister, Leah, he was willing to workanother seven years for her (Gen. 29:16–30). And women exploitmen and their desire in order to get what they want, in effectmastering them. Lot’s daughters contrived to get what theywanted from him (19:30–38), and Tamar manipulated Judah’sdesire (38:13–26).
Reproduction
Oftenin the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children.Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’lldie!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with hersister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb”is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is fullof them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3:“Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; yourchildren will be like olive shoots around your table.”
InGenesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at thedisposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservantsbecame surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10).Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so shegave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finallyresulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she boreto Abraham.
Inthe beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husbandand wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man fromCain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage(Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have morethan one wife, the household discontent and strife are what ishighlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elderis to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1Tim. 3:2;ESV, KJV: “the husband of onewife”),meaningmonogamous.
Inthe Bible, women are described as having a number of different sexualrelationships with men. There were wives, who enjoyed the closestrelationship and had the greatest privileges. There were concubines,who were not wives but were bound to a single man. The greatestdeviation from the norm of creation was the institution of the harem,whereby a king took to himself any number of consorts. The law ofMoses restricted this practice (Deut. 17:17).
Legislation
TheTorah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughtersof Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so inCanaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israeldaughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if therewere no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num.27:1–11).
Whena man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vowwas subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, butif he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she wasmarried, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, thenthere was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as aman’s (Num. 30:1–16).
Sexualintercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as theact rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both mustbathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrualdischarge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or layupon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She mustwash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).
Ifa man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not avirgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents providedevidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man wasseverely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her(otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her[Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to beput to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).
Inthe case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city,both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she hadfailed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented tosexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the manwas killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, hispunishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce(Deut. 22:23–29).
Numbers5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that hiswife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantaljealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.
TheStatus of Women
Inthe Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what isexpected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the onlywoman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to adeity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel(despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrewverb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge,however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera;Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this missionunless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that theprestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Anotherprominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidancewhen the law was rediscovered (2Kings 22:14).
Manybiblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined bytwo midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21).Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts hertrek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bearsher name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and thewomen there have the distinction of being the first to witness therisen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized aroundMary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape theearly church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, callingthem “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” andpossibly even “apostle.”
Scripturealso at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Evehanded the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israelworshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num.25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women,directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba wasa temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marredhis career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved manyforeign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile,the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreignwives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).
Songof Songs
Songof Songs, while acknowledging the great power of sexuality to movepeople to act against their own best interests, nevertheless portrayslove in a very positive light. The love between a man and a woman isshown in Song of Songs to be not primarily about generating children.Offspring are not at issue in the Bible’s great love song.Rather, relations between man and wife rest on a deeper foundation,that of sexual enjoyment and desire. In the words of Hannah’shusband, Elkanah, “Don’t I mean more to you than tensons?” (1Sam. 1:8).
InGen. 3:16, God pronounces judgment on the woman that her “desire”will be for her husband, but that he will master her. The Hebrew wordfor “desire” occurs only once outside Genesis, in Song7:10, where the woman says that her lover’s “desire”is for her. This seems to be a direct reference to Gen. 3:16. Thus,in Song of Songs the judgment on the woman is rolled back andreversed in love. In Song of Songs it is the king who is enthralledin love and thus subdued (7:5). He would not have it any other way!
Thus,sexuality is celebrated in Song of Songs. What proves to be such agrave temptation to men elsewhere is shown to be an essential part ofGod’s good creation, albeit a potent and dangerous facet oflife. Women do not exist simply to produce children; they partner andrevel with their lovers, together enjoying that particular part ofGod’s creation that requires two sexes to explore.
Imagery
Womenand marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things.Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationshipwith Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife asChrist loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to humanhistory in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned withrighteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whor*Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). Theconsummation of the age is when one is judged and the other entersher eternal marital bliss.
Thebook of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolizedby two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices ofWoman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33)calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-bloodtemptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdomhas her counterpart at the end of the book in the detaileddescription of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the womanwho fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—thehighest blessing of the wise.
Pauluses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of lawversus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenantgiven at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-setof slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by worksof the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promisedson, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, andfreedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again,two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves,the other being God’s free people.
ChurchGovernment
Throughoutmost of Christian history, women’s roles in the church havebeen comparable to their role in the general culture. Womenparticipated little in the institutional life of society, and thechurch was no different. A number of Bible texts can be used insupport of women’s marginalization as leaders. For example, inthe OT, the cult was managed by the priestly caste, and no woman wasever a priest of Yahweh. In the NT, the local churches were overseenby a company of elders. Elders are described by Paul as men, thehusband of one wife, who were apt to teach and who managed their ownfamilies well (1Tim. 3:1–7). Immediately before thisdescription, Paul notes that women were not to teach or haveauthority over men (1Tim. 2:9–15). Women were the “weakerpartner” (1Pet. 3:7). Thus, women’s subordinaterole throughout most of church history has some biblicaljustification.
However,as women participate more and more in the institutional life ofsociety, the normative value of the aforementioned texts has beenquestioned, and other texts have been put forward to provide analternative biblical conception of women’s roles in the church.Perhaps 1Tim. 2:12 is only against teaching a specific heresy,and the Greek verb translated “to assume authority over”(authenteō)may refer to a specific kind of authoritarian or domineeringbehavior. As noted above, in Rom. 16 Paul considers women to beleaders in the church. Since it is true that in Christ there is nomale or female (Gal. 3:28), how far does this extend? Today’schallenge for churches is to decide these matters in light of thewhole of Scripture rather than a few proof texts.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Galatians 4:21-31
is mentioned in the definition.
Terminology
TheNT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means“gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greekthe term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Inparticular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of thecitizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city.Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not tothe citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, theywere not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records threeinstances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Themost important background for the Christian use of the term is theLXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundredtimes, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. Whileqahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah,the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering,translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’ssacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, whereqahal is linked with the covenant.
Inthe NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’speople 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although theword occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it isof special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instancesin James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn fromthis usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and theplural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those whoprofess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsiadesignates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28;15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23;Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation(1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
TheNature of the Church
Thenature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning ofone word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a richarray of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are thosemetaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church,five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom ofGod, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and thebody of Christ.
Thepeople of God.Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in thecovenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be mypeople” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer.7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28;Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus,the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras whor*sponded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin restsexclusively in God’s grace.
Tospeak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT andthe NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship betweenthe church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize thematter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the churchand Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuitybetween them.
Continuitybetween the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that thechurch and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuousrelationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel insome sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding toDeut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in thewilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from theintimate association noted earlier existing between the wordsekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified bythe phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewedin some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein theprototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal.4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).
Second,Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OTnames for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact.Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph.2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people”(1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29;Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16;Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “theelect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood”(1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Discontinuitybetween the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totallyidentical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes therelationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological(end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is aprogression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor.5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced bythe fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel,without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter asGentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Althoughthe church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be thepermanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).
Thekingdom of God.Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping ofthe two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete.The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and thesecond aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the ageto come has broken into this age, and now the two existsimultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining therelationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because thechurch also exists in the tension that results from the overlappingof the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as theforeshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition:first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, thechurch is not equal to the kingdom of God.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after theresurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about thechurch. However, there are early signs of the church in the teachingand ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general,Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in thathe gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted thebeginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant.More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in twopassages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesuspromised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition,thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of thechurch overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that thekingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks theintimate association between the church and the kingdom. The secondpassage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlikethe Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimatelyrelated as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does notequate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christianspreached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g.,Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is theinstrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt.16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church becomethe keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
Theeschatological temple of God.Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple inthe future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9;1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he wasgoing to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of thefulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited thechurch, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36).Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit inthe Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor.3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; seealso Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However,that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in thepreceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for thechurch to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fullyaccomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In themeantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform theirsacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb.13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
Thebride of Christ.The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (seeIsa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied toChrist and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, hassacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph.5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is tobe faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia theofficial wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternalunion of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9;21:1–2).
Thebody of Christ.The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to thePauline literature and constitutes one of the most significantconcepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph.4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is todemonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within thechurch, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body ofChrist is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of theend time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage ofthe image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that thechurch, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to gospiritually. It is not yet complete.
Sacraments
Atthe heart of the expression of the church’s faith are thesacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The formersymbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter providesspiritual sustenance for the church.
Baptism.Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Threeobservations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament.First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association ofrepentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek.36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipatedChristian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance inexpectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiahwould exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesusas Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may bean allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes thatlead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practicedbaptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 //Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34;cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor.1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thesepassages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism isintimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the personwith the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates theperson into the community of believers.
Lord’sSupper.The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This ritesymbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as itcelebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblicaldata concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted byChrist (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20;1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of thePassover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introducedtwo changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened breadwith a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; hereplaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood onthe cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early churchpracticed the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunctionwith the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). Atwofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NTauthors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways:participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death ofJesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’sSupper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination pointof the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supperinvolves identification with the body of Christ, the community offaith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).
Worship
Theultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ andin the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). Theearly church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met inhomes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15;Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many JewishChristians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, theestablished time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday,the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Theearly church most probably patterned its order of worship after thesynagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess.1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col.1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col.4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to theneedy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9;James 2:15–17).
Serviceand Organization
Fiveobservations emerge from the NT regarding the service andorganization of the early church. First, the ministry of the churchcenters on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believersby God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good ofothers (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believerpossesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third,it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christmatures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph.4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership inthe NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called“pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28;1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13),there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy”and the “laity” in the church of the first century;rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all thesaints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth,spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).
To be a citizen is to possess all the rights, privileges,benefits, and responsibilities of a locale. Three types ofcitizenship are prominent in the Bible.
Israelite/Jewish.Theexistence of citizenship in Israel is clearly implied by the concernexpressed for just treatment of the aliens who lived among theIsraelites (Exod. 22:21–24; 23:9–12). In such a contextthe political and religious aspects of citizenship were sointertwined as to be inseparable.
Roman.Romancitizenship could be obtained in several ways: (1) being born tocitizen parents, (2) manumission from slavery, (3) completionof military service, (4) rendering a valuable service to theRoman Empire, (5) colonization of a city, (6) payment ofmoney. Citizenship entailed privileges such as full access to thelegal system and certain protections, among them the right to appealto Rome and the prohibition against certain punishments. Althoughonly a small number of the early Christians were Roman citizens, Paulused his Roman citizenship at key points in his ministry (Acts 16:37;22:25–28; 25:10–12).
Heavenly.Inthe NT, believers have a citizenship that extends beyond the confinesof this world. The ministry and death/resurrection of Jesusinaugurated the kingdom of God, which is not of this world (John19:36). Believers have entered this kingdom and therefore arecitizens of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26–28), who eagerlyawait the return of Jesus their Savior (Phil. 3:20–21). Suchcitizenship is available to both Jew and Gentile alike (Eph. 2:11–22)and entails a life worthy of the gospel (Phil. 1:27–30).
Centralto citizenship is the expectation of loyalty, a reality that cancause tension when one’s heavenly citizenship conflicts withthe expectations of human authorities. In such cases, believersshould follow the examples of Jesus (John 19:11) and the apostles(Acts 4:13–22), who remained loyal to their heavenlycitizenship at great cost.
To be a citizen is to possess all the rights, privileges,benefits, and responsibilities of a locale. Three types ofcitizenship are prominent in the Bible.
Israelite/Jewish.Theexistence of citizenship in Israel is clearly implied by the concernexpressed for just treatment of the aliens who lived among theIsraelites (Exod. 22:21–24; 23:9–12). In such a contextthe political and religious aspects of citizenship were sointertwined as to be inseparable.
Roman.Romancitizenship could be obtained in several ways: (1) being born tocitizen parents, (2) manumission from slavery, (3) completionof military service, (4) rendering a valuable service to theRoman Empire, (5) colonization of a city, (6) payment ofmoney. Citizenship entailed privileges such as full access to thelegal system and certain protections, among them the right to appealto Rome and the prohibition against certain punishments. Althoughonly a small number of the early Christians were Roman citizens, Paulused his Roman citizenship at key points in his ministry (Acts 16:37;22:25–28; 25:10–12).
Heavenly.Inthe NT, believers have a citizenship that extends beyond the confinesof this world. The ministry and death/resurrection of Jesusinaugurated the kingdom of God, which is not of this world (John19:36). Believers have entered this kingdom and therefore arecitizens of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26–28), who eagerlyawait the return of Jesus their Savior (Phil. 3:20–21). Suchcitizenship is available to both Jew and Gentile alike (Eph. 2:11–22)and entails a life worthy of the gospel (Phil. 1:27–30).
Centralto citizenship is the expectation of loyalty, a reality that cancause tension when one’s heavenly citizenship conflicts withthe expectations of human authorities. In such cases, believersshould follow the examples of Jesus (John 19:11) and the apostles(Acts 4:13–22), who remained loyal to their heavenlycitizenship at great cost.
An arid environment challenging to life. Desert comprises about a third of the earth’s land surface, often overtaking verdant areas and squeezing human beings and animals into narrower oases. The deserts of the Bible—Negev, Sinai, Paran, and Zin—are part of the greater Saharo-Arabian desert system, the largest and driest in the world. Most of the land east (areas of present-day Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and south (Egypt) of Palestine is desert. However, the desert experience of most Israelites was not vast sands but rather arid environments that could otherwise flourish with sufficient water. In this regard, the biblical “wilderness” and “desert” semantically overlap, but they are not the same environments.
With average precipitation of ten inches or less, these regions typically have sparse vegetation and little or no agriculture (Jer. 2:2). Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79) describes the Essenes, who lived near the Dead Sea, as having only “the company of palm trees” (Nat. 5.73). Temperatures are severe, often exceeding 110°F on summer days, but also falling below freezing on winter nights. The limited winter rains provide short-lived grass for grazing (1Sam. 17:28; Ps. 65:13; Jer. 23:10), along with thorns and briers (Judg. 8:7). Cisterns were dug to collect the precious rain (Gen. 37:22).
The severity of the environment is not conducive for animal and human life. The Bible mentions wild asses (Job 24:5; Jer. 48:6), jackals (Mal. 1:3), ostriches (Lam. 4:3), owls (Ps. 102:7), poisonous snakes (Isa. 30:6), panthers, and wolves (Hab. 1:8). The desert came to be viewed as the haunt of demons (Matt. 12:43) but also as a place for spiritual refreshment. By definition, a desert is untouched by human hands. The patterns and sounds go back to God, not the noisy neighbors of urban life. The desert therefore can facilitate communion with God because of the absence of distractions and the inevitable deepening awareness of the fragility of existence. Scarcity of resources also requires communal sharing and cooperation for survival.
Instead of in major urban centers in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine, the Bible presents God as training people in the desert by testing their faith, beginning with the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50). God redeems Israel out of Egypt into the desert (Exod. 15:22; 16:1; 17:1), leading them to Sinai (Exod. 18:5; 19:1–2) and then a forty-year sojourn (Num. 14:33; 32:13; Deut. 2:7). Following seasons of testing, concerning which the people routinely fail, God provides freshwater and manna, the “grain of heaven” (Ps. 78:24). However, except on the Sabbath, people are not allowed to store the food but must cultivate complete dependence upon God’s provision for their daily bread. Elijah flees into the wilderness and is provided for by an angel (1Kings 19:1–8). He returns to Mount Sinai (Horeb) and experiences the immediate presence of God in a “thin silence” (1Kings 19:8–13; NIV: “gentle whisper”).
This pattern is repeated in the NT, beginning with John the Baptist, who dresses like a desert nomad and subsists on locusts and wild honey—foods near at hand and not subject to agricultural tithing (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). After John’s baptism, Jesus departs into the wilderness, where he fasts and is tempted for forty days and nights among the wild beasts but is also provided for by angels (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.). Paul, after his experience on the road to Damascus, departs into Arabia (Nabatea, present-day Jordan), the place “where the nomads live” and the traditional site of Mount Sinai (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.72; Gal. 1:17; 4:25). (Damascus, perhaps the oldest city in the world, is an oasis bordering the Arabian Desert on a highway connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia.) The author of Revelation depicts a woman, who represents the people of God, fleeing into the wilderness to escape the red dragon, Satan (Rev. 12:1–6).
This expression appears in Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10 NRSV (althoughwith variation in the Greek: chronos in the former, kairos in thelatter). In Gal. 4 the context suggests that God sent Christ at themost opportune time. In Eph. 1 the expression is more apocalyptic andlooks forward to the occasion when this fullness takes place. Thereit designates the entirety of the era from the coming of Christ tothe final culmination of all things. In Ephesians the fullness isboth already present and awaiting its ultimate arrival when Christreturns and finalizes his rule.
Twofactors appear to have especially made the time of the incarnation ofChrist and the subsequent commissioning of the church to proclaim thegospel “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) the mostopportune time in history. First was the Roman conquest of theMediterranean world and the subsequent establishment of the PaxRomana (“peace of Rome”). As a result, travel was bothvery accessible and relatively safe. Second was the establishment ofGreek as the common tongue. In fact, Greek-speaking Jews resided innearly every major city of the Roman world. These two factors madethe Roman world of the first century one of the most opportune placesin human history for travelers such as Paul and Silas to traverse theMediterranean region and proclaim the gospel.
Otherfactors further contributed to the ripeness of the era. Among themwas the heavy cloud of anticipation among Jews in Palestine, awaitinga messianic deliverer who would free them from Roman oppression.
For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and theredeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historicalacts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, andespecially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only oneGod (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because“God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himselfthrough various images and metaphors.
Imageryof God
God’scharacter and attributes are revealed primarily through the use ofimagery, the best and most understandable way to describe themysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describeGod’s being and character. Some examples follow here.
Godis compared to the father who shows compassion and love to hischildren (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used bythe prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesuspredominantly uses the language of “Father” in referenceto God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationshipwith the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel evenbefore the Israelites have a human king (1Sam. 10:19).
ThePsalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’ssovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24;74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as theshepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict hisnature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image ofthe potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, whocreates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom.9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as thelong-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the settingof war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against hisenemy (Exod. 15:3).
Godis also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), andlawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is alsofrequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionatecare, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, andmore (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is oftenreferred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, asdoes the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit isidentified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide(John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared tovarious things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps.27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut.32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many imagesin nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g.,Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.
Last,anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’sactivities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak ofGod: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2Chron. 16:9), mouth(Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26),shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).
Namesand Attributes of God
TheOT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used forGod, ’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 (“GodAlmighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who seesme” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive namesreveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from thepersonal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings;thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.
Themost prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which istranslated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At theburning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moseshis personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am”(Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH”seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh,who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the Godwho was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the Godof Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living”(Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tiedto God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (Seealso Names of God.)
Manyof God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “TheLord, 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 leavethe guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their childrenfor the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”Below are further explanations of some of the representativeattributes of God.
Holiness.The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all otherattributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by theadjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holyrighteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is theonly supremely holy one (1Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’sname is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemnedas guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one whohas concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned amongthe nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of hisdefiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealedby his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but alsohe expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All thesacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements ofholiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character ofholiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and hebrings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).
Loveand justice.Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledgeof God without having love (1John 4:8). Images of the fatherand the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’slove (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4).God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his onlySon Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1John4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’ssacrificial love (1John 3:16).
God’sjustice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4;Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps.99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’sjustice is demonstrated in judging people according to theirdeeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek.18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice byupholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicatingthose afflicted (1Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial inimplementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, Godrequires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).
Godkeeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice.God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa.The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in oneact. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people;because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of theirsins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by thework of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).
Righteousnessand mercy.God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’snature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness(Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness andjustice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14).God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work ofJesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness willultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22;cf. Ps. 7:11).
TheEnglish word “mercy” renders various words in theoriginal languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek,charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate thesevariously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,”“kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy”is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’smercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In thePsalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form ofexpression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss.41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosenpeople (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins areforgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), andeven sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14).God is “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV).
Godkeeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. Hisrighteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does oneoperate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy isshown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent oftheir sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.
Faithfulness.God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that hemade with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping hiscovenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him andkeep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to hischaracter, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2Tim.2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seenin fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulnessby fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3;Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build thetemple that he promised to David (2Sam. 7:12–13; 1Kings8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon andreturning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3).God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending JesusChrist, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33;1Cor. 15:3–8).
Goodness.Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), inhis work of creation (1Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), andin his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).
Patience.God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which isa favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8;Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa.42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophetJonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10).The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people towardrepentance (Rom.2:4).
Godof the Trinity
TheChristian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but existsin 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 Spiritis one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the samedivine 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 ofcreation (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).
The designation “Israelites” signifies the nationof Israel, which can be traced back to the children of Jacob (Gen.46:8; cf. Exod. 1:9; Num. 1:45). To distinguish themselves fromforeigners, Israelites called themselves ’ibrim, “Hebrews”(Gen. 43:32; Exod. 10:3). During the period of the divided kingdom,the name “Israelites” was used to refer to theEphraimites (2Kings 17:6; 18:11); during the Second Templeperiod, it took on a religious orientation (Sir. 46:10; 47:2; Jdt.4:11; 2Macc. 1:25–26). In the NT, true Israelites are notnecessarily those descended from Israel or Abraham but rather thosewho trust in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of God’spromise to Abraham (Rom. 9:4–8; Gal. 4:21–31; cf. Rev.21:12). See also Israel, Spiritual.
Both Ezekiel and Revelation envision a new Jerusalem and usesimilar imagery to describe it and to emphasize God’s presencein the city (Ezek. 48:30–35; Rev. 21:1–22:5). Accordingto Revelation, the throne of God, the Lamb, and the river of life arepresent in the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven, is madeof gold and glass, is adorned with jewels, and is in the shape of acube. Only those with names in the Lamb’s book of life willdwell in the city (Rev. 21:27). The city represents a new, spiritualorder (Gal. 4:25–26; Heb. 12:22). See also Eschatology;Jerusalem.
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycirc*mstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcirc*mstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycirc*mstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcirc*mstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
John and the author of Hebrews call Jesus Christ the “onlybegotten,” as traditionally translated (John 1:14, 18; 3:16,18; 1John 4:9; Heb. 11:17 KJV). The epithet, which is a singleword in Greek (monogenēs),signifies being the only one of its kind within a specificrelationship, and therefore, as we find in more recent translations,it may also be translated “one and only Son” (NIV) or“only son” (NRSV). Although the Bible claims that God hasmany humansons and daughters, in various senses he has but one “onlybegotten” Son, who must also be distinguished from the angels,who arealso identified as sons of God (Heb. 1:1–14; seealso Gen. 6:2,4).
Theauthor of Hebrews and Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian,present Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son”(Heb. 11:17 KJV; Josephus, Ant. 1.222). But Abraham has two sons, theother one being Ishmael, as the biblical narrative and Paul makeclear (Gen. 16:11–16; Gal. 4:22). The difference is that Isaacwas the only begotten between Abraham and his wife, Sarah, and theone for whom God decided to perpetuate the covenant that heoriginally made with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:1–6;17:19). Isaac is presented by early Christians as a type of Christ,and for Paul, he is a type of all the children of the new covenant(Gal. 4:21–31). Nevertheless, through Jesus’ fulfillmentof God’s covenant obligations, many, including the descendantsof Ishmael, will be called “sons of God” (Gen. 17:20;Hos. 1:10, cited in Rom. 9:26; Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26;4:6).
Withoutcompromising the uniqueness of his position, the “one and only”Son is happy to share his status before God the Father through faith,by grace, which brings the believer into union with his body, thechurch (Gal. 2:19–20; Eph. 2:1–10; Heb. 2:10). Theconviction that Christ cannot be compared to human children orangels, parts of God’s creation, contributed to the belief ofcomparing Christ only with God, the uncreated.
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
Showing
1
to
50
of159
results
1. The Laughter Of Faith
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
God called Sarah, too! We talk so much about God's call to Abraham that we can easily forget that God called Sarah as well. The story is told in Genesis 17. This old story begins with God's call to Abraham. It then moves to Sarah. "As for Sarah," God says, "she shall no longer be called Sarai but Sarah shall be her name." "I will bless her ..." God promises, "and she shall give rise to nations; kings of people shall come from her" (Genesis 17:16).
We can only imagine the solemnity of the moment when God made this promise to Abraham and Sarah. Abraham broke the solemnity. He fell on his face laughing at the very thought of God's promise. "Can a child be born to a man who is 100 years old?" Abraham laughed to himself. "Can Sarah, who is 90 years old, bear a child?" Abraham's laughter, it turns out, is the laughter of unbelief. He doesn't believe that God can keep this promise. The Lord has to scold Abraham a bit for his unseemly laughter. "No," God says firmly, "your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac" (Genesis 17:19). The Lord, it seems, also has a sense of humor. The name Isaac means: "he laughs."
Very soon thereafter the Lord visited Abraham in the guise of three messengers. Abraham and Sarah scurried around like mad making their home suitable for a visit from the Lord. They put on their finest spread. As the meal begins we hear that the Lord has made this appearance in order to speak with Sarah. "Where is Sarah your wife?" the Lord said to Abraham. Abraham had laughed off God's promise to Sarah. But the Lord perseveres. The Lord speaks the promise again in Sarah's hearing. "I will surely return to you in due season and your wife Sarah shall have a son" (Genesis 18:10).
This time it was Sarah who laughed. "After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?" she mused (Genesis 18:12). Sarah joined her husband in the laughter of unbelief. For the Lord, however, this was not a laughing matter. The Lord was angry with all this laughter of unbelief. "Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?" the Lord says in reprimand of Sarah's laughter. Sarah protested. "I did not laugh," she said to the Lord in fear. "Oh yes you did laugh," the Lord replied (Genesis 18:14-15).
Now a little laughter cannot dissuade the Lord. The Lord had made a promise to Sarah. The Lord kept that promise. The Lord means what the Lord says! Sarah did conceive and bear a son. What joy this son must have brought into the life of Abraham and Sarah! They named him "laughter," Isaac, as the one who promised had instructed them.
But we're not done with the laughing. Now it was Sarah's turn to laugh. "God has brought laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me," Sarah said. "Who would ever have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have born him a son in his old age" (Genesis 21:6-7). Sarah's laughter here is clearly a sign of her faith. At least that's how the author of the book of Hebrews understands the story. Sarah's laughter has turned from the laughter of unbelief to the laughter of belief. She has heard the promise. She has conceived. She has given birth. She has believed it all. And she has laughed about it all. As Sarah is our witness, what better response can be given to this promise-making, promise-keeping Lord?
2. No Imitations
Illustration
Martin Luther
The question is asked: how can justification take place without the works of the law, even though James says: "Faith without works is dead"? In answer, the apostle distinguishes between the law and faith, the letter and grace. The 'works of the law' are works done without faith and grace, by the law, which forces them to be done through fear or the enticing promise of temporal advantages. But 'works of faith' are those done in the spirit of liberty, purely out of love to God. And they can be done only by those who are justified by faith.
An ape can cleverly imitate the actions of humans. But he is not therefore a human. If he became a human, it would undoubtedly be not by vurtue of the works by which he imitated man but by virtue of something else; namely, by an act of God. Then, having been made a human, he would perform the works of humans in proper fashion.
Paul does not say that faith is without its characteristic works, but that it justifies without the works of the law. Therefore justification does not require the works of the law; but it does require a living faith, which performs its works.
3. The Covenants of the Scripture
Illustration
Merrill F. Unger
Scripture'scovenants and their significance:
Eternal covenant, Hebrews 13:20 :The redemptive covenant before time began, between the Father and the Son. By this covenant we have eternal redemption, an eternal peace from the 'God of peace', through the death and resurrection of the Son.
Edenic covenant, Genesis 1:26-28: The creative covenant between the Triune God, as the first party (Genesis 1:26), and newly created man, as the second party, governing man's creation and life in Edenic innocence. It regulated man's dominion and subjugation of the earth, and presented a simple test of obedience. The penalty was death.
Adamic covenant, Genesis 3:14-19: The covenant conditioning fallen man's life on the earth. Satan's tool (the serpent) was cursed (Gen 3:14); the first promise of the Redeemer was given (3:15); women's status was altered (3:16); the earth was cursed (3:17-19); physical and spiritual death resulted (3:19).
Noahic covenant, Genesis 8:20-9:6: The covenant of human government. Man is to govern his fellowmen for God, indicated by the institution of capital punishment as the supreme judicial power of the state (Genesis 9:5-6). Other features included the promise of redemption through the line of Shem (Genesis 9:26).
Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12:1-3; confirmed 13:14-17; 15:1-7; 17:1-8: The covenant of promise. Abraham's posterity was to be made a great nation. In him (through Christ) all the families of the earth were to be blessed (Galations 3:16; John 8:56-58).
Mosaic covenant, Exodus 20:1-31:18: The legal covenant, given solely to Israel. It consisted of the commandments (Exodus 20:1-26); the judgments (social) - (Exodus 21:1; 24:11) and the ordinances (religious); (Exodus 24:12-31:18); also called the law. It was a conditional covenant of works, a ministry of 'condemnation' and 'death' (2 Corinthians 3:7-9), designed to lead the transgressor (convicted thereby as a sinner) to Christ.
Palestinian covenant, Deut 30:1-10: The covenant regulating Israel's tenure of the land of Canaan. Its prophetic features include dispersion of disobedience (Deuteronomy 30:1), future repentance while in dispersion (30:2), the Lord's return (30:3), the restoration (30:4-5, national conversion (3:6), judgment of Israel's foes (30:7), national prosperity (30:9). Its blessings are conditioned upon obedience (30:8,10), but fulfillment is guaranteed by the new covenant.
Davidic covenant, 2 Samuel 7:4-17, 1 Chr 17:4-15: The kingdom covenant regulating the temporal and eternal rule of David's posterity. It secures in perpetuity a Davidic 'house' or line, a throne, and a kingdom. It was confirmed by divine oath in Psalm 89:30-37 and renewed to Mary in Luke 1:31-33. It is fulfilled in Christ as the World's Saviour and Israel's coming King (Acts 1:6; Rev 19:16; 20:4-6).
New covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrew 8:8-12: The covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemption of Christ. It secures blessing for the church, flowing from the Abrahamic covenant (Galations 3:13-20), and secures all covenant blessings to converted Israel, including those of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, and Davidic covenants. This covenant is unconditional, final and irreversible.
4. Do Not Spit Here
Illustration
Staff
Many years ago, H.A. Ironside had a school for young Indian men and women, who came to his home in Oakland, California, from the various tribes in northern Arizona. One of these was a Navajo young man of unusually keen intelligence. One Sunday evening, he went with Ironside to the young people's meeting. They were talking about the epistle to the Galatians, and the special subject was law and grace. They were not very clear about it, and finally one turned to the Indian and said, "I wonder whether our Indian friend has anything to say about this."
He rose to his feet and said, "Well, my friends, I have been listening very carefully, because I am here to learn all I can in order to take it back to my people. I do not understand all that you are talking about, and I do not think you do yourselves. But concerning this law and grace business, let me see if I can make it clear. I think it is like this. When Mr. Ironside brought me from my home we took the longest railroad journey I ever took. We got out at Barstow, and there I saw the most beautiful railroad station and hotel I have ever seen. I walked all around and saw at one end a sign, 'Do not spit here.' I looked at that sign and then looked down at the ground and saw many had spitted there, and before I think what I am doing I have spitted myself. Isn't that strange when the sign say, 'Do not spit here'?
"I come to Oakland and go to the home of the lady who invited me to dinner today and I am in the nicest home I have been in. Such beautiful furniture and carpets, I hate to step on them. I sank into a comfortable chair, and the lady said, 'Now, John, you sit there while I go out and see whether the maid has dinner ready.' I look around at the beautiful pictures, at the grand piano, and I walk all around those rooms. I am looking for a sign; and the sign I am looking for is, 'Do not spit here,' but I look around those two beautiful drawing rooms, and cannot find a sign like this. I think 'What a pity when this is such a beautiful home to have people spitting all over it too bad they don't put up a sign!' So I look all over that carpet, but cannot find that anybody have spitted there. What a queer thing! Where the sign says, 'Do not spit,' a lot of people spitted. Where there was no sign at all, in that beautiful home, nobody spitted. Now I understand! That sign is law, but inside the home it is grace. They love their beautiful home, and they want to keep it clean. They do not need a sign to tell them so. I think that explains the law and grace business."
As he sat down, a murmur of approval went round the room and the leader exclaimed, "I think that is the best illustration of law and grace I have ever heard."
5. DOCTOR OF THE LAW
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Luke 5:17 - "On one of these days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem;"
Acts 5:34 - "But a Pharisee in the council, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while."
Later we will speak of the role of the lawyer in Jewish life, but here we are speaking of persons whom we might consider as being advanced beyond that specified role; men who specialized in the sacred statutes. These men concerned themselves with teaching rather than with the giving of written opinions. This is a strictly New Testament term, and the men themselves were of a type unique in history.
These men belonged to God, but not in a priestly way. They had nothing to do with worship; their dress was the same as that of the other Hebrews; they did not eat of the sacrificial meat; and, although they did make up a caste, they made no claim to belonging to the blood of Aaron nor the tribe of Levi. In the beginning they were simply the "scribes," but as they devoted themselves more and more to the study of religious questions, they began to be differentiated from the scribes; they felt themselves, and perhaps, with reason, to be an aristocracy of intellect and piety.
Although they traced their claim back to the time of Ezra, they became most prominent after the Maccabean wars, the national struggle against the Greeks. They had "built a hedge around the Law," and, by doing so, had preserved the essence of Judaism. They provided true intellectual life of the nation, and guided its thought; they controlled education, and particularly the higher education; they named the judges and fixed the jurisprudence; they uttered the commentaries on the Law in the synagogues; they had made the Great Sanhedrin not only a governing body and a supreme court; but also a theological college - in other words, they had the say in every phase of national life.
Today, we don’t have men who have powers of such broad scope and far-reaching potential, but we can perhaps compare these doctors of the law to the professors or heads of departments of our colleges and universities. And they became doctors of the law in much the same way that professors become professors. Any Hebrew at all could aspire to this position, no matter what his economic or sociological status. If a man left the vocation to devote himself to one of the most famous doctors, under whom he might study. After however long a period of time was necessary for him to have achieved a sense of readiness to teach, he was on his own, with students following him.
They more than studied the Law; they scrutinized every part of it and analyzed its application to the every day life of the Jews. To this degree, they went far beyond the modern professor, who seldom works with material of his own. Of course, these men weren’t working with extraneous material, either, but they were making individual judgments and applications that affected almost all of the people.
It was through the work of these men that was built up the Talmud - "the Instruction," or, "the Recitation." This is an extraordinary work, made up of two divisions. The first is the Mishnah, which is written in classical Hebrew; it is the basic canonical legal code, and its 63 tractates cover the whole field of human activity. The second is the Gemara, an immense commentary of the Mishnah; it was written in Aramaic, and there are two recensions, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian.
The greatest doctor of the Law of whom we know was Gamaliel, who might have been a teacher of St. Paul. We must tread warily when judging these men; there is a tendency to confuse them with the Pharisees of the worst kind which Jesus often criticized. But a doctor of the Law was not necessarily a Pharisee. They taught what they felt to be the truth, as our best professors do today, sometimes at risk.
And, as many professors have left works of inestimable value, so too the doctors of the Law left behind the Talmud, to which the expatriated Jews could cling as a symbol that the destruction of the Temple did not mean the end of their religion. We may not always agree with the opinions of our professors, but we must acknowledge the debt of their works, just as we must acknowledge the works of the doctors of the Law.
6. Ashamed To Beg
Illustration
John G. Lynn
In a large attractive office in a major city, a man worked for several months next to a small attractive woman. He had been there only a few days when he thought he'd ask her to lunch, which he did. The following day he asked her for dinner and they began a long dating relationship. They went to craft fairs together, since he liked to do that. They went to the ocean, which he also liked to do. They used to take long walks along the river.
He liked this relationship. He had lived for many years with his mother. In fact, it was only a few months after she died that he began dating his co-worker. Little by little, however, she began to dislike both the relationship and this man. She felt like she really wasn't herself when she was with him. She couldn't speak what she really felt. She rarely asserted where she wanted to go or what she wanted to do. She later said, "I just wasn't Sandra with him."
So she terminated her social, dating relationship with this man. Once she did, she began to feel like herself again. Her friends told her, "You're more like the old Sandra now."
Across the same town, in another office, a young man sat at his desk for eight years, struggling to manage his office work force. Outside he was a friendly, generous person. In the office he was the same way and his workers flattened him out, like steamrollers over an asphalt road. He worked long, long hours; he holed himself up behind his desk to keep all the records accurate; he just about wore himself out. Finally his friends told him, "Steve, you'd better get out of that job. You're not yourself anymore. Those people are eating you alive and you're not getting anywhere."
He protested, "But it's a good job. I make good money. And besides, it is what I do best. How can I even look for anything else?"
Then the company was sold. New management came in. All the supervisors were replaced and Steve found himself on the street. He was terrified. "To dig I am unable, to beg I am ashamed," he said. "What can I do?"
His friends told him they were glad he was fired. "At least you are your old self," they said. "And you'll find something. Just go for it." He did, and now he's doing better than he ever could have in the position he once felt he could never leave.
The steward in today's gospel lesson is like both Sandra and Steve. Sandra was not herself in that relationship. Steve was not himself in that job. Both were wasting away, losing that which was most precious to them both: their proper identities. Both felt they could not survive if they gave up something so close and precious as a relationship or a job.
In today's gospel lesson the steward's master calls him on the carpet. In Luke's mind, this Lord and Master is God. God always calls his stewards into question when they are wasteful of who and what they are. This steward is not just wasting his master's goods. The steward is wasting himself. Nothing is more precious in God's household than his steward's proper identity. This is God's gift to this steward, and he is wasting it. No wonder God calls him to account.
God does this to us all the time. He checks our relationships and he checks our jobs -- to help us make sure we are not wasting our identities where we are. This steward was. So God dismissed him. He had to get a new job and a new relationship. God does not tolerate our wasting who we are.
This dismissal turned the light on for the steward. "What shall I do? To dig I am unable, to beg I am ashamed." Finally he came to an assessment of who he was and what he could do. He came to value his own identity, one of his master's most precious goods.
He called in his master's creditors. "How much do you owe? One hundred barrels of oil? Take your bill and write 50." Did he cheat his master? Not at all. The commercial documents from that time indicate that 50 percent was the normal commission. He renounced what he thought he had to have to live on -- and he won friends for himself in so doing.
"How much do you owe? One hundred bushels of wheat? Take your bill and write 80." He did not cheat his master. He simply renounced his own commission. He gave up what he thought he needed to survive, and he survived much better without it. He zeroed in on his own identity, rather than on the commission he thought he had to have to survive.
Bruno Bettelheim, who has studied the survivors of the concentration camps in World War II, writes that those who survived were able to give up everything they thought they needed and, in so giving, they survived. Those who thought they would die if they had no clothing, no jewelry, no regular food, no books -- they did not make it.
Sometimes God will do to us what he did to this steward. He will strip us down to the very core of our existence to make us discover who we really are. He will bring us to a crossroad in life where we will be forced to say, "To dig I am not able, to beg I am ashamed." There God will reveal to us who we are. As we reach to him for help we will find ourselves renouncing our commissions -- whatever we think we need to survive but we really don't. God knows that.
Luther found himself in this position many times in his life. Once, as he began his study of law, he was struck down in a thunderstorm. Terrified, he cried out, "Dear Saint Ann, help me. I will become a monk." He quit his study of law and became a theologian instead -- the identity God wanted for him in the first place. He was wasting himself in law.
Later on, as a monk, he studied Paul's Epistle to the Romans. At that time in his life he felt he could not be Martin Luther unless he ended each day with a tray full of good works to present to God. In praying over Paul, he learned the difference between works righteousness and faith. He learned he was wasting God's gift of Martin Luther's identity in that daily tray full of good works.
He wrote: "Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that the just shall live by faith. Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through mercy and sheer grace God justified us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise." Martin Luther the Do-Gooder was reborn Martin Luther the Believer.
Today's gospel lesson introduces that curious term, "mammon," an Aramaic word which means: "that in which I put my trust." We are like Sandra, Steve, and this steward. How easy to put all our trust in relationships or commissions or a job. God will not let us do that forever. He will force us to give up those people and those things we feel are absolutely critical. In God's eyes they are roadblocks to the truth. He will take them away. Then we will discover our real identities as God's stewards, and him alone shall we serve. "
7. Love of Enemies
Illustration
Joyce Hollyday
Sarah Corson, a founder of Servant in faith and Technology (SIFAT) in Alabama, was on a mission in theSouth American jungles to set up an agricultural project in a village where she and her husband had earlier started a church and built a fish hatchery. She was with seventeen young people, including two of her sons. One Thursday night, around midnight, thirty soldiers rushed toward the house where they were all staying. Sarah was paralyzed with shock as the soldiers stormed over the clearing leading to the house. She remembered with fear that earlier that day, a neighbor had overheard a conversation near the military camp in which soldiers had blamed Americans for recent resistance to a military takeover of the country. The soldiers had vowed to exterminate all Americans in the region.
Sarah Corson prepared to die. But as the soldiers approached, she found herself offering them warm words of welcome. The commander shoved his rifle against her stomach and pushed her into the house. The soldiers began pulling everything off the shelves and out of drawers. Sarah calmly explained that she and the others were there only to set up projects and teach the Bible. The commander, stating that he had never read the Bible, said, 'Maybe it is a communist book, for all I know.' Sarah asked him to let her talk about it.
While he kept his gun pointed at her and the other soldiers continued ransacking the house, Sarah opened a Spanish Bible the Sermon on the Mount. She read about Jesus' command to love one's enemies.
'That's humanly impossible!' the commander shouted.
'That's true, sir,' she answered. 'It isn't humanly possible, but with God's help it is possible.' She challenged him to let her prove it by killing her slowly: 'Cut me to pieces little by little, and you will see you cannot make me hate you. I will die praying for you because God loves you.'
The commander lowered his gun and stepped back. Then he ordered everyone in the house to march to a truck. But before they reached the truck, he turned around and led the women back to the house. He told Sarah that the women would be raped repeatedly in the jungle camp, so he could not take them there. He also told her that this was the first time he had disobeyed an order from a superior officer-and that he would pay with his life if he were found out. He said as he left, 'I could have fought any mount of guns you might have had, but there is something here I cannot understand. I cannot fight it.'
The village waited in agony for word of the men who had been taken. The local people insisted that the church service not be held on Sunday, because soldiers considered any gathering a source of political agitation. But on Saturday night, a messenger arrived with word from the commander of the attack that he would be in church on Sunday. He wanted Sarah to come and get him; if she did not, he would walk the ten miles. It sounded to Sarah like a threat. She sent a message throughout the town that night. 'We will have the service after all,' she said, 'but you are not obligated to come. In fact you may lose your life by coming. No one knows what this solider will do. Do not come when the church bell rings unless you are sure God wants you to come.'
Sarah picked up the commander and his bodyguard at the military camp. Holding their rifles they marched coldly into the church and sat down. The church was packed before the first hymn was over. The people came in fear and trembling, but they came.
It was the church custom to welcome visitors by inviting them to the platform, singing a welcome song, and waving to them. Then the congregation would line up to shake the visitors' hands, embrace them, and offer a personal greeting. Sarah decided only to offer the commander and his bodyguard the song. Stunned to be invited up front, the two soldiers stood with their guns across their backs. The people sang weakly and waved timidly. But then, the first man on the front seat came forward and put out his hand. As he bent over to hug the soldiers, Sarah overheard him saying, 'Brother, we don't like what you did to our village, but this is the house of God, and God loves you, so you are welcome here.' Every person in the church followed his example, even the women whose eyes were red from weeping for their loved ones whom the commander had taken prisoner.
The commander was incredulous. He marched to the pulpit and said, 'Never have I dreamed that I could raid a town, come back, and have that town welcome me as a brother.' Pointing to Sarah, he said, 'That sister told me Thursday night that Christians love their enemies, but I did not believe her then. You have proven it to me this morning. . . I never believed there was a God before, but what I have just felt is so strong that I will never doubt the existence of God as long as I live.'
The commander stayed for lunch with the congregation and offered money from his own pocket to parishioners who had loved ones taken away. Two weeks later, all of the men who had been taken were released from the basem*nt cell where they had been imprisoned and some had been tortured.
Sarah Corson was overcome with gratitude to God for putting divine love in her heart for a person she could not love on her own. She remembers the last words the commander said to her: 'I have fought many battles and killed many people. It was nothing to me. It was just my job to exterminate them. But I never knew them personally. This is the first time I ever knew my enemy face to face. And I believe that if we knew each other, our guns would not be necessary.'"
Note: the full story can be found here -https://sifat.org/pdfs/Welcoming_the_Enemy.pdf
8. The Story of Sarah's Sorrow
Illustration
Max Lucado
Sarah was rich. She had inherited twenty million dollars. Plus she had an additional income of one thousand dollars a day. That's a lot of money any day, but it was immense in the late 1800s.
Sarah was well known. She was the belle of New Haven, Connecticut. No social event was complete without her presence. No one hosted a party without inviting her.
Sarah was powerful. Her name and money would open almost any door in America. Colleges wanted her donations. Politicians clamored for her support. Organizations sought her endorsem*nt.
Sarah was rich. Well known. Powerful. And miserable.
Her only daughter had died at five weeks of age. Then her husband had passed away. She was left alone with her name, her money, her memories, ... and her guilt. It was her guilt that caused her to move west. A passion for penance drove her to San Jose, California. Her yesterdays imprisoned her todays, and she yearned for freedom.
She bought an eight-room farmhouse plus one hundred sixty adjoining acres. She hired sixteen carpenters and put them to work. For the next thirty-eight years, craftsmen labored every day, twenty-four hours a day, to build a mansion. Observers were intrigued by the project. Sarah's instructions were more than eccentric ... they were eerie. The design had a macabre touch. Each window was to have thirteen panes, each wall thirteen panels, each closet thirteen hooks, and each chandelier thirteen globes.
The floor plan was ghoulish. Corridors snaked randomly, some leading nowhere. One door opened to a blank wall, another to a fifty-foot drop. One set of stairs led to a ceiling that had no door. Trap doors. Secret passageways. Tunnels. This was no retirement home for Sarah's future; it was a castle for her past.
The making of this mysterious mansion only ended when Sarah died. The completed estate sprawled over six acres and had six kitchens, thirteen bathrooms, forty stairways, forty-seven fireplaces, fifty-two skylights, four hundred sixty-seven doors, ten thousand windows, one hundred sixty rooms, and a bell tower.
Why did Sarah want such a castle? Didn't she live alone? "Well, sort of," those acquainted with her story might answer. "There were the visitors..." And the visitors came each night.
Legend has it that every evening at midnight, a servant would pass through the secret labyrinth that led to the bell tower. He would ring the bell...to summon the spirits. Sarah would then enter the "blue room," a room reserved for her and her nocturnal guests. Together they would linger until 2:00 a.m., when the bell would be rung again. Sarah would return to her quarters; the ghosts would return to their graves.
Who comprised this legion of phantoms?
Indians and soldiers killed on the U.S. frontier. They had all been killed by bullets from the most popular rifle in America the Winchester. What had brought millions of dollars to Sarah Winchester had brought death to them. So she spent her remaining years in a castle of regret, providing a home for the dead.
You can see this poltergeist place in San Jose, if you wish. You can tour its halls and see its remains. But to see what unresolved guilt can do to a human being, you don't have to go to the Winchester mansion. Lives imprisoned by yesterday's guilt are in your own city. Hearts haunted by failure are in your own neighborhood. People plagued by pitfalls are just down the street .. or just down the hall.
There is, wrote Paul, a "worldly sorrow" that "brings death." A guilt that kills. A sorrow that's fatal. A venomous regret that's deadly.
How many Sarah Winchesters do you know? How far do you have to go to find a soul haunted by ghosts of the past? Maybe not very far.
Maybe Sarah's story is your story.
9. Historic: The Declaration of Independence
Illustration
Staff
The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in Congress, July 4, 1776
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
- For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circ*mstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.
- We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
- We have reminded them of the circ*mstances of our emigration and settlement here.
- We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
- New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
- Massachusetts: John Hanco*ck, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
- Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
- Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
- New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
- New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
- Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
- Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
- Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
- Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
- North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
- South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
- Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Background
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to set forth the principles upon which the Congress had acted two days earlier when it voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee's motion to declare the freedom and independence of the 13 American colonies from England. The Declaration was designed to influence public opinion and gain support both among the new states and abroad especially in France, from which the new "United States" sought military assistance.
Although Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston comprised the committee charged with drafting the Declaration, the task fell to Jefferson, regarded as the strongest and most eloquent writer. The document is mainly his work, although the committee and Congress as a whole made a total of 86 changes to Jefferson's draft.
As a scholar well-versed in the ideas and ideals of the French and English Enlightenments, Jefferson found his greatest inspiration in the language and arguments of English philosopher John Locke, who had justified England's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 on the basis of man's "natural rights." Locke's theory held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty. Jefferson's theory of "natural law" differed in that it substituted the inalienable right of "the pursuit of happiness" for "property," emphasizing that happiness is the product of civic virtue and public duty. The concept of the "pursuit of happiness" originated in the Common Sense School of Scottish philosophy, of which Lord Kames was the best-known proponent.
Jefferson emphasized the contractual justification for independence, arguing that when the tyrannical government of King George III of England repeatedly violated "natural law, " the colonists had not only the right but the duty to revolt.
The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1) a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.
10. I Choose You
Illustration
Victoria Brooks
There's an old, word-of-mouth story, which is probably aprochryphal, about Abraham Lincoln visitinga slave auction. Observing the proceedings from the rear of the crowd, his attention was caught by a strong, defiant, young slave girl with sharp, angry eyes.
Something in her manner pierced him; the sheer intensity of her gaze spoke to him of the anguish of her captivity and her longing for freedom. When it was her turn to step to the auction block, he and several others bid. With each rise in price, her hostility grew. Finally, Lincoln won, paid the money, and had her brought to him.
She came, rigid with resistance, arms tied behind her back, leg chains dragging.
“Untie her,” Lincoln said.
“Oh no, sir!” her auctioneer responded, pulling her forward with a jerk. “She be a wild one! Ain’t no end o’ trouble in her. Ya best git her home afore ya be takin’ her chains off.” With that, he secured her to the horse rail, turned, and left.
Lincoln stood quietly for a moment, looking at the young woman. “What is your name?” he asked.
She did not respond.
“What are you called?” he repeated.
Steeling herself for the inevitable blow, she set her jaw, stared at the ground, and said nothing.
Taking the bill of sale from his pocket, Lincoln read it carefully, then marked the bottom with his signature. Slowly he stooped, undid the clasp of her ankle irons, and untied the rope that had cut into her wrists.
“You’re free to go, Sara-Jane,” he said, handing her the document. “You are free to choose your own life now.”
Reaching again into his pocket, he drew out a card and several coins. “If you have any trouble,” he said, “call on me at this address and I will help you.”
As the reality of what she had heard seeped slowly through her brain and into her muscles, the young woman grew weak and unable to sustain her rage. Minutes ticked by as anger gave way to confusion, and confusion to disbelief. Like someone in the grip of a personal earthquake, shockwaves of agonizing hope rippled through the muscles of her face. As she fought for control, her jaw clenched, then settled again; her muscular shoulders convulsed, then were still. Finally, a large, work-callused hand rose to take the papers and the money. Instantly, she turned and ran.
Lincoln watched as she disappeared down the rutted road.
Taking the reins of his horse, he began to mount when he saw her suddenly stop. Some distance away, she stood totally still. More minutes passed. Then, slowly, deliberately, she made her way back. Standing in front of him, she handed him the money.
“I choose you,” she said, looking up for the first time into Lincoln’s gaunt, craggy face. “You say I choose my own life now,” she continued haltingly, “ ... that I work for who I want. You give me papers to show that I be free.” The deep sinkholes of her oval face were wet with emotion. “If that be true . . . if I be free . . . then I choose you.”
11. What Is Unique About Christianity?
Illustration
Brett Blair
The story of Jesus sitting and debating the Law with rabbis reminds me of another debate that took place in a comparative religions conference, the wise and the scholarly were in a spirited debate about what is unique about Christianity. Someone suggested what set Christianity apart from other religions was the concept of incarnation, the idea that God became incarnate in human form. But someone quickly said, "Well, actually, other faiths believe that God appears in human form." Another suggestion was offered: what about resurrection? The belief that death is not the final word. That the tomb was found empty. Someone slowly shook his head. Other religions have accounts of people returning from the dead.
Then, as the story is told, C.S. Lewis walked into the room, tweed jacket, pipe, armful of papers, a little early for his presentation. He sat down and took in the conversation, which had by now evolved into a fierce debate. Finally during a lull, he spoke saying, "what's all this rumpus about?" Everyone turned in his direction. Trying to explain themselves they said, "We're debating what's unique about Christianity." "Oh, that's easy," answered Lewis, "it is grace."
The room fell silent.
Lewis continued that Christianity uniquely claims God's love comes free of charge, no strings attached. No other religion makes that claim. After a moment someone commented that Lewis had a point, Buddhists, for example, follow an eight-fold path to enlightenment. It's not a free ride.
Hindu's believe in karma, that your actions continually affect the way the world will treat you; that there is nothing that comes to you not set in motion by your actions. Someone else observed the Jewish code of the law implies God has requirements, and Islam's code of love does the same.
At the end of the discussion everyone concluded Lewis had a point. Only Christianity dares to proclaim God's love is unconditional. An unconditional love that we call grace.
12. A List of Murphy's Laws
Illustration
Staff
- If anything can go wrong, it will.
- Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.
- Everything takes longer than you expect.
- If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will go wrong first will be the one that will do the most damage.
- Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse.
- If you play with something long enough, you will surely break it.
- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
- If you see that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
- Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
- It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
- The consumer report on the item will come out a week after you've made your purchase
- Gold's Law: If the shoe fits, its ugly.
- If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don't want hits the paper.
- A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
- If everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
- When you dial a wrong number you never get a busy signal.
- Law of Gardening: You get the most of what you need the least.
- Jones's Law: Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.
- Eve's Discovery: At a sale, the only suit or dress that you like and that fits is not the one on sale.
- Nothing will be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.
- Harris's Law. Any philosophy that can be put "in a nutshell" belongs there. Sidney J. Harris
- Douglas's Law of Practical Aeronautics: When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. Donald Douglas
- Unnamed Law. If it happens, it must be possible.
- Wing-Walking, First Law of: Never leave hold of what you've got until you've got hold of something else.
- Bucy's Law. Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man. Fred Bucy
- Clopton's Law: For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.
- United Law: if an organization carries the word "united" in its name, it means it isn't: e.g., United Nations, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States.
- Kafka's Law: in the fight between you and the world, back the world. Franz Kafka
- Ettorre's observation: The other line moves faster. This applies to all lines bank, supermarket, toll booth, customs. If you change lines, then the other line the one you were in originally will move faster.
- Osborn's Law. Variables won't, constants aren't.
- Never use one word when a dozen will suffice.
- If it can be understood, it is not finished yet.
- Never do anything for the first time.
- Marshall's generalized iceberg theorem: Seven-eighths of everything can't be seen.
- Runyon's Law: The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to bet.
- The severity of an itch is inversely proportional to the reach.
- Paige's Sixth Rule: Don't look back; something might be gaining on you. Satchel Paige
- Kristol's Law: Being frustrated is disagreeable, but the real disasters in life begin when you get what you want. Irving Kristol.
- Parkinson's Law: (1) Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. (2) Expenditure rises to meet income. C. Northcote Parkinson
- Peer's Law: The solution to a problem changes the problem. John Peers
- Corcoran's Law: All papers that you save will never be needed until such time as they are disposed of, when they become essential. John Corcoran
- Darwin's Observation: Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can. Charles Darwin
- Thurber's Conclusion: There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else. James Thurber, Fables for Our Time
- A spilled drink flows in the direction of the most expensive object. Judye Briggs, in The New Official Rules, P. Dickson
- Law of milk and other precious commodities: The less you have, the more you spill.
- Law of epistolary effort: Troublesome correspondence that is postponed long enough will eventually become irrelevant.
- Law or repair: Anything adjustable will sooner or later need adjustment
- Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
- A dog's affection increases in direct proportion to how wet and sandy he is.
- When you come in late for work, everybody notices; when you work late, nobody notices.
- The waitress always comes around to ask you how your food is whenever your mouth is full.
- The average time between throwing something away and needing it badly is about two weeks.
- Life is what happens to you while you are making other plans.
- If you treat a sick child like an adult and a sick adult like a child, everything works out pretty well.
- Checks are always delayed in the mail. Bills arrive on time or sooner.
- If you do a job twice, it's yours.
- Smith's Fourth Law of Inertia: A body at rest tends to watch television.
- No matter how many show up for choir practice, you will need one more copy of the music.
- The shorter the agenda the longer the meeting.
- When you're right, nobody remembers; when you're wrong, nobody forgets.
- O'Reilly's Law: No matter what goes wrong, there's always someone who knew it would.
- Kilpatrick's Law: Interchangeable parts aren't.
- Shanahan's Law: The length of the is the square of the number of people present.
- Brennan's Law: Paper is always strongest at the perforations.
- Dooley's Law: If something happens to you, it has previously happened to all your friends.
- Never hire a plumber who wears rubber boots or an electrician with scorched eyebrows. Ashley Cooper
- Thomas's Rules of the Game: a) No matter how well you do something, someone won't like it. b) No matter how trivial the assignment, it is always possible to build it up to a major issue.
- Herman's Rule: if it works right the first time, you've obviously done something wrong. Pat (Mrs. Herman) Jett
- Toomey's Rule: It is easy to make decisions on matters for which you have no responsibility.
- Immediately after you buy an item, you find a coupon for it. Bill Copeland
- The first person who gets off a crowded elevator is always standing in the back. Carl Dombeck
- The last key in the bunch usually opens the lock.
- The weaker the arguments, the stronger the words. Dave Gneiser.
- If a problem causes many meetings, the meetings eventually become more important than the problem.
13. IN THE PROVERBIAL PITS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Most of us think we are pretty good - not worthy of going to hell. In commercials we are told to use a variety of products. Why? Because we are worth it. Commercials and best-selling books discourage us from seeing ourselves in a negative light, unable to be in control over every situation in life - even over our life beyond life.
Therefore, if someone says to you, "Go to hell," it is an affront. The person who says such a thing infers that in his opinion you are not number one but that you are the pits. We have no right to say such a thing, for it is much like the pot calling the kettle black. Yet, when Jesus Christ returns to earth at the end of time, he will have to tell billions of people to "Go to hell." Why? Because all people are sinners and cannot save themselves. Until we recognize our sinfulness, we will never desire a savior. The problem is that we all think we’re pretty good people. Compared to what? - other sinners, maybe - but not to a righteous God.
And what is the Bible’s standard for salvation? Jesus told us when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as my father in heaven is perfect." Perfection. One hundred percent is the only passing grade. God doesn’t grade on a curve. The Book of James puts it another way, "If we offend in one point we are guilty of all." If we commit just one sin, we step outside the realm of the law and become an outlaw. You don’t have to break every law in the book to be a criminal - just kill one person.
Sin is a "four-letter word" ... a dirty word, that will someday keep us out of heaven if left alone. It puts us in the proverbial pits. It is a cancer of the soul, and if left untreated, it brings everlasting death. I cannot imagine anything more awful than to stand before the Lord Jesus at the end of time, and have him say, "John, go to hell!" Satan works overtime to delude us into thinking that we are good enough to make it to heaven on our own. If we want to know how black and hideous our hearts are in the sight of God, we need only take a long look at the cross. God considered our sin so terrible and our lives so important that he sent his Son to the cross to die for us.
Heaven is a free gift and is not earned or deserved. Grace is God’s riches at Christ’s expense. People are sinners and cannot save themselves. Our sinful condition will lead to eternal death if left unchecked. If we accept God’s gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ, we can have the confidence of everlasting life in heaven.
14. The Forgiveness Business
Illustration
Brian Stoffregen
I have frequently quoted Robert Capon's comments that the church is not in the morals business. The world does a pretty good job of that. What the world can't get right is the forgiveness business which is the church's proper job.
From a slightly different angle, he writes in Between Noon and Three: Morality, by its very nature, must be concerned with norms, with standards; whereas grace, by definition, is concerned with persons: it is a refusal to allow the standards to become the basis of their reconciliation or condemnation. Thus the conflict: morality tells you the standard you need to meet in order to be properly alive; grace tells you that all you ultimately need is to be dead – which is either the world's lowest standard or no standard at all.
Grace and morality, therefore, are two different kettles of fish. Morality deals with virtue and vice, with what is strengthening or weakening for human nature considered as an operational possibility. Grace, however, deals with sin, with a condition in which human nature has ceased to be an operational possibility and has ended up a lost cause. Grace is, to say it once again, about raising the dead. In the Bible the opposite of sin is not virtue; it is faith – faith in God who raises the dead.
All this talk about morality, therefore, is misleading. When we get far enough into it we begin to convince ourselves that the preaching of the moral law will, if done energetically enough, lead people to lead good lives and so make them more like what they ought to be. But that's not biblical. St. Paul says that the purpose of the law was not to do that at all, but to bring us to the awareness of sin. We sit here talking as if proper moral instruction to fifteen-year-olds will somehow keep them clear of sin. But St. Paul says that Scripture has concluded – locked up – all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. [pp. 157-8]
The goal of our preaching is not more moral behaviors, but forgiveness. I have often said that the primary purpose of sermons is absolution. While there may be instructions, and illustrations, and jokes, etc., if the forgiveness of sins through Jesus is not proclaimed in some way, I think that the sermon (and the church) has failed in its God-given purpose.
15. Where the Spirit Moves
Illustration
Donald B. Strobe
I once read something called "Deal's First Law of Sailing." It goes something like this: "The amount of wind will vary inversely with the number and experience of the people you have on board the sailboat." And the second law is like unto it: "No matter how strong the breeze when you leave the dock, once you have reached the farthest point from the port from which you started, the wind will die."
Those who have the hobby of sailing can attest to the validity of these "laws." In fact, the art of sailing is a good analogy for the receiving of God's grace. While sitting in a sailboat, have you ever tried to make the wind blow? It cannot be done. Neither can you, by your own efforts, cause God's grace to come upon you. While sailing, you are entirely at the mercy of the wind (along with your skill at capturing it). You may capture the wind in your sails for a time, but it can disappear suddenly, leaving you stranded in the middle of the lake, and, if you do not have a motor, too embarrassed to ask for a tow. Sailing is a humbling experience. You may use the wind to take you where you want to go for a time, but it can shift directions without warning. Sailing makes you aware of your dependency.
That's Jesus' message in John, Chapter Three. You cannot capture the grace of God, you can only receive it. God's Spirit moves where He wills, and the birth from above is just that: from above. It is the work of God's Spirit within us, not something we do for ourselves.
16. A Careful Separation
Illustration
Julie Riley
Many years ago, a little girl named Sarah lived in a home for unwed mothers. She was not one of the clients; her mother was the cook there. Sarah had grown up in the home, and was the special pet of all the girls who came there. One day, a new girl, young and pregnant had come to the home. As she sat on the bench, waiting for her intake interview with the director, she wept. Sarah, now about twelve or thirteen years old, had seen many girls come and go by then, and she knew most all of them had the same look of despair when they arrived. Sarah took pity on the girl, who was not far from her own age. She began talking, and as she did, the girl stopped crying. Then Sarah began to offer some advice on how to answer the standard questions, particularly the one about the father of the baby, "When she asks you who the father is, don't lie, she hates it when you lie, and, what ever you do, don't say he's dead, everyone says he's dead." The girl looked at Sarah, and much to her surprise, asked her, "So what did you say when she asked you?"
Sarah froze; she was horrified that the girl had mistaken her for one of them. She loved and cared for those girls, but in her mind there had always been a careful separation between them and her. She could love and support them, but she could not be one of them. That, I guess is the difference between God's hospitality and ours. God chose to be us. "Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness." (Phil. 2:5b-7)
17. Eighty Years and One Night
Illustration
Thomas Lindberg
According to a traditional Hebrew story, Abraham was sitting outside his tent one evening when he saw an old man, weary from age and journey, coming toward him. Abraham rushed out, greeted him, and then invited him into his tent. There he washed the old man's feet and gave him food and drink. The old man immediately began eating without saying any prayer or blessing. So Abraham asked him, "Don't you worship God?"
The old traveler replied, "I worship fire only and reverence no other god."
When he heard this, Abraham became incensed, grabbed the old man by the shoulders, and threw him out of his tent into the cold night air.
When the old man had departed, God called to his friend Abraham and asked where the stranger was. Abraham replied, "I forced him out, because he did not worship you."
God answered, "I have suffered him these eighty years although he dishonors me. Could you not endure him one night?"
18. Hanging On To Today
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
You may not know the name Sarah Winchester, but you may know about her home in San Jose, California. For 38years, 24 hours a day, workmen remodeled that house. There are 40 bedrooms in the Winchester house -- 161 rooms altogether. There are 13 bathrooms, 9 kitchens, 10,000 windows, and 40 staircases. For 38 years, one resident, Sarah Winchester, kept adding to her house. Her son had died in infancy and, fifteen years after their marriage, her husband died. Sarah, now made painfully aware of the fleetingness of life, went to a spiritualist who told her that she had to build a house and continue building and never stop because the day she stopped she would join her husband and her son.
"What bizarre behavior,” you say, and you’re right. But the problem is a common one -- trying to hold on to the present
As you move into the new year, remember -- the past is forgiven; the future is promise; so live in the present with hope.
19. Magic Words
Illustration
James W. Moore
When our grand-daughter Sarah was two years old, she was extremely active. She was always busy, always moving and always in a hurry… because at two years of age, she had already realized that there are so many exciting things to do and see and experience in this incredible world God has given us.
One day Sarah interrupted her play-time just long enough to run into the kitchen in search of a mid-afternoon snack. Hurriedly, she said to her mother: "Banana, Momma, Banana!"
Jodi, her mother, handed her a banana. Sarah quickly grabbed the banana and turned to rush back out of the kitchen. However, before she took very many steps, her mother said: "Sarah, come back. What are the magic words?" Sarah screeched to a halt, turned back around and said: "Please! Thank You! You're Welcome! God Bless You! And I Love You, Mommy!"
Now, that's gratitude. That's the healed lepers heart and her mother recognized it, and Sarah got a second banana!... And a warm hug!
20. Take the Garbage Out
Illustration
Brett Blair
The poet Shel Silverstein wrote a rather humorous poem called: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout Would Not Take The Garbage Out! Let me share it with you.
Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout
Would not take the garbage out!
She'd scour the pots and scrape the pans,
Candy the yams and spice the hams,
And though her Daddy would scream and shout
She simply would not take the garbage out.
And so it piled up to the ceilings:
Coffee grounds, potato peelings,
Brown bananas, rotten peas,
Chunks of sour cottage cheese.
It filled the can, it covered the floor,
It cracked the window and blocked the door
With bacon rinds and chicken bones,
Drippy ends of ice cream cones,
Prune pits, peach pits, orange peel,
Gloppy glumps of cold oatmeal,
Pizza crusts and withered greens,
Soggy beans and tangerines,
Crusts of black burned buttered toast,
Gristly bits of beefy roasts . ..
The garbage can rolled on down the hall,
It raised the roof, it broke the wall . . .
Greasy napkins, cookie crumbs,
Globs of gooey bubble gum,
Cellophane from green baloney,
Rubbery blubbery macaroni,
Peanut butter, caked and dry,
Curdled milk and crusts of pie,
Moldy melons, dried up mustard,
Eggshells mixed with lemon custard,
Cold french fries and rancid meat,
Yellow lumps of cream of wheat.
At last the garbage reached so high
That finally it touched the sky.
And all the neighbors moved away,
And none of her friends would come to play.
And finally Sarah Cynthia Stout
Said, "OK, I'll take the garbage out!"
But then, of course, it was too late . . .
The garbage reached across the state,
From New York to the Golden Gate.
And there, in the garbage she did hate,
Poor Sarah met an awful fate,
That I cannot right now relate
Because the hour is too late.
But children, remember Sarah Stout
And always take the garbage out!
We are all like Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout. We have not taken the garbage out. We keep our sins, as wretched as they may be, we will not get them out. The garbage of our sins, stinks up our lives. John the Baptist is our reminder: Repent and let Christ take the trash out of your life. Be baptised! Make straight paths for Him! Flee from the wrath to come! Produce fruit! This is Advent and this is its message.
21. 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."
22. Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day
Illustration
William H. Seward
Washington, D.C. March 30, 1863
Senator James Harlan of Iowa, whose daughter later married President Lincoln's son Robert, introduced this Resolution in the Senate on March 2, 1863. The Resolution asked President Lincoln to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting. The Resolution was adopted on March 3, and signed by Lincoln on March 30, one month before the fast day was observed.
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.
And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.
And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisem*nts in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.
All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.
23. Heirs According to the Promise
Illustration
King Duncan
There is a legend which comes from the French Revolution. King Louis XVI and his queen were condemned to death. They were escorted to the guillotine in a public square in Paris where they were beheaded. The mob was not satisfied. "Bring out the Prince," they cried. "He is next!!" The young boy was terrified. He was only six years old, but he was next in line to be King. In the mind of the crowd, he had to be eliminated.
According to the story, the young prince stood on the platform trembling in his black velvet coat. The mob screamed at him, "Down with Royalty! Eliminate all royalty! Kill the Prince!!" Suddenly a shout came from the crowd: "Don't kill him. Killing him is too good for him. It will only send him to heaven, and that is too good for royalty. I say turn him over to Meg, the Witch. She'll teach him to be a sinner, and when he dies his soul will go to hell. That's what royalty deserves."
So according to the legend, that is exactly what happened. The officials turned the young prince over to the witch. The vile woman tried to teach him foul language, but every time she prompted the Prince to be profane, he would stubbornly stamp his feet and clench his fists and shout: "I will not say it. I will not speak that way. I was born a King, and I will not speak like I live in a gutter."
Thisapocryphal story speaks toPaul's words: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
24. What Law is Operating Here?
Illustration
John Killinger
Note: We do not advise using this illustration in a sermon. In fact, we strongly advise against it, but we thought it a great meditation for us clergy, considering subjects of Law and Grace. Here it it:
In Mary Gordon's novel, Final Payments, a book addressing the repression of many young Catholics of the 50s and 60s, a young woman named Isabel Moore has just buried her father after several years of illness, during which she was confined to his bedside. For several months, she flounders, trying to discover what she has the aptitude to do with the remainder of her life. She finallyaccepts employment as a social worker, going into homes to check on the welfare of ill and elderly people kept by individuals or families under contract to the social services department. One day she is visiting a Mr. Spenser, an 83-year-old man who lives his life in a bed. As she enters his room histeeth are out, and he's reading the Memoirs of Casanova. He is very polite, and offers to put his teeth in, but she says he need not. They talk with great ease and candor, for Isabel has been accustomed to conversing for hours with her father.
Mr. Spenser says that most people are kind to the elderly only out of guilt. Isabel asks if he doesn't believe in acts of pure generosity. He responds that he finds the very concept of purity rather "jejune." Isabel says he reminds her of a friend she loves but whom she cannot have because he is married and has a daughter. Mr. Spenser talks with her about love and tells her she is a beautiful woman. She doesn't think she is, but his insistence encourages her, and she thanks him.
As she prepares to leave, he asks a favor.
"Name it," she says.
"Let me see your breasts."
At first, Isabel says she can't. He wants to know why. She says merely because they are hers. But then she thinks: What could it hurt? She remembers the woman in The Brothers Karamazov who tells a priest she cannot give up an adulterous affair because "it gives him so much pleasure and me so little pain." She locks the door, unbuttons her blouse, loosens and removes her brassiere, and stands there.
Mr. Spenser says nothing. He looks, then closes his eyes.
"You have done me a great kindness," he says. "You have given me what I wanted, not what you thought I wanted, or what you wanted me to want."
Isabel dresses. They shake hands very formally. She unlocks the door and leaves.
Some may find prurience in this passage, but I sense instead a great depth of love and mercy, a recognition of our common humanity, an act of genuine and redemptive compassion. What law is operating here? The law forbidding sexual looseness, voyeurism, and lust? Or is that transcended, in Isabel's case, by the law of kindness and generosity? The latter, I would contend. There is more of the authentic spirit of Jesus in Isabel's act than in all the railing against sensuality and p*rnography by the Jesse Helmses and James Wildmons, and certainly more than in the stern judgmentalism of the Puritan community that condemned Hester Prynne in Hawthorne's novel.
And it is this higher law, the law of love and understanding, that must be identified and taught from our pulpits in the coming century. The media often understand this better than our churches, and their dramas frequently turn on the contrast between the hypocrisy of "good" Christians and the genuine kindness of instinctively well-dispositioned persons in the secular culture outside the church. This isnot to say that Hollywood is a better gauge of morals than the church; however,thepreacher can help to dispel the confusion parishioners feel by more consistently identifying Christ's position over against that of the legalists and by saying no to the Phariseeism that continues to plague the church from generation to generation.
25. I Was Hungry
Illustration
Adrian Dieleman
I WAS HUNGRY and you circled the moon.
I WAS HUNGRY and you told me to wait.
I WAS HUNGRY and you set up a commission.
I WAS HUNGRY and you talked about bootstraps.
I WAS HUNGRY and you told me I shouldn't be.
I WAS HUNGRY and you had napalm bills to pay.
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Machines do that kind of work now."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "The poor are always with us."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Law and order comes first."
I WAS HUNGRY and you blamed it on the Communists.
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "So were my ancestors."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "We don't hire over 35."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "God helps those who help themselves."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Sorry, try again tomorrow."
This was written in the 70's but I don't think things have changed all that much.The point is that those who consider themselves to be one of God's children in Christ MUST share with the needy. Those who worship God must show compassion to the hungry. This is not an option. This is a requirement from the Lord for those who are saved by grace through faith. Showing compassion is a test of the reality of our faith.
26. More Than Love
Illustration
Dave Johnson
In his profound book, The Cross of Christ, John Stott wrote about how in his death on the cross Jesus paid our sin debt in full:
“God’s love must be wonderful beyond comprehension. God could quite justly have abandoned us to our fate. He could have left us alone to reap the fruit of our wrongdoing and to perish in our sins. It is what we deserved. But he did not. Because he loved us, he came after us in Christ. He pursued us even to the desolate anguish of the cross, where he bore our sin, guilt, judgment, and death… It is more than love. Its proper name is ‘grace,’ which is love to the undeserving. (God) himself in his Son has borne the penalty for (our) law-breaking” (pp. 83 and 190).
27. It Isn't Fair! - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
One day a rich young ruler came enthusiastically running up to Jesus and asked: "What must I do to be saved?" Jesus answered: Keep the law. "This I have done from my youth up," came the reply. Yet one thing do you lack said Jesus. Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor. Then come follow me. We are told that the young man walked away sorrowfully, for he had great wealth. Concluded the Master: It will be hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
The disciples had been watching the dynamics of this happening and they were quite disturbed. Jewish tradition had always taught that God had especially blessed rich men and that is why he was rich. In their way of thinking, if a wealthy man could not receive salvation, then how could a poor man have any hope? They asked of Jesus: who then can be saved?
It reminds me of the movie Fiddler on the Roof. The poor Jewish milkman who lives in early 1900 Russia sings what he would do "if I were a rich man." His wife reminds him: money is a curse. He immediately shouts up to heaven: curse me God, curse me. Jesus has just turned away a wealthy man, and in the Jewish way of thinking it doesn't make any sense. In fact, I am not sure how many Methodist preachers would have the courage to do it. My entire ministry I have been waiting for a sugar daddy to come along.
But it was Simon Peter who drew the question even more clearly into focus for us. He asked what is on the mind of every one of us, only we are too sophisticated to ask it and too self-righteous to admit that we even think it. Peter didn't have any problem with that. He simply laid his cards out on the table. He said, "Lord, we have given up everything, riches and all, to follow you." What then shall we have?" In others words, what's in this for us Lord. How do we stand to profit? Where's the payoff?
In response to Peter's question, Jesus told a story. It was the harvest time of the year. At 7 A. M. a wealthy landowner went to the Town Square to hire laborers. In this story of hiring workers we learn:
- The person who comes late is just as important as the one who comes early.
- We really do not comprehend the nature of God's unmerited grace.
- If there is any special payoff for being selected early to labor in the Lord's field, it is simply the inner satisfaction that we receive from being in God's employ.
28. Who Were the Pharisees?
Illustration
a) They werethe strictest sect of the Jews withregard to "The Law."
b) They believed in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body and the existence of spirits.
c) They believed in punishment and rewards in the future life.
d) They believed in conformance to the law and that God's grace was only promised to the doers of the law; i.e.,religion was external.
29. Risk and Reward
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
Did you ever read Ann Landers? Often she went beyond the issues she was addressing to speak with profound wisdom about life itself. In a piece she entitled, “The Dilemma," she wrote:
"To laugh is to risk appearing a fool. To weep is to risk appearing sentimental. To reach out for another is to risk involvement. But risks must be taken because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing. The person who risks nothing has nothing and is nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he cannot learn, and he cannot feel, and he cannot change, and he really cannot grow. Chained by his certitudes, he is a slave."
And then Ann Landers closed with these powerful words, "Only a person who takes risks is free."
Thank you, Ann Landers.If you're holding back on an issue because the risk is too great. Take another look. It may be that only as you take the plunge will you find direction and meaning.
30. Nothing Can Separate Us from God’s Great Love
Illustration
John McCard
There dwells within all of us the capacity to do great harm to other people when we insist on getting our own way, when we place our own fulfillment first, and we desire the adoration and worship of other people.
I realize that many of us at different times in our lives fail to meet the expectations that Jesus has expressed as part of the Father's will in today's gospel. And because we fail at times to live out the vows that our lips might profess, this does not mean that God does not love us or that we are separated from the love that Christ gives us through the cross. This point must be made again and again for Christians because of our tendency to place God's law above God's grace and God's mercy. Let me say it one more time: There is nothing, nothing we can do in our lives or have done in our lives that can ever separate us from God's great love.
No, if anything, Jesus' words remind us that God wants our lives to be fulfilling and that our relationship as husbands and wives is part of the plan God has for us to share in a life of holiness and joy as part of God's creation.
31. Christ Sets Us Free of All Chains
Illustration
King Duncan
There is a story about an ancient Persian king who had injured his ankle quite severely. None of his court physicians knew how to help him. A member of his court told him about a certain slave who was said to have a great insight into matters of the body. The Persian king sent for the slave who was brought to him weighted down with chains and dressed in rags. However, the slave was indeed able to give him great assistance with his problem. The pain ceased and the ankle soon healed. The king was elated and justly grateful for the slave's help. He was so grateful that he sent the slave a gift--a new set of golden chains.
Some people shy away from religion because they are afraid that they may be trading in one set of chains for another. Religion can do that to people, but not a relationship with Christ. Christ sets us free!
32. Breaking the Rules
Illustration
Charles Swindoll
Charles Swindoll, in his book "The Grace Awakening," tells about one of his youth workers many years ago who was a member of an ethnic church. It was Scandinavian. Being a rather forward-looking and creative young man, he decided he would show the youth group a missionary film. We're talking about a simple, safe, black-and-white religious-oriented movie documentary. That film projector hadn't been off an hour before a group of the leaders in the church called him in and asked him about what he had done. They asked, "Did you show the young people a film?" In all honesty he responded, "Well, yeah, I did." "We don't like that," they replied. Without trying to be argumentative, the youth worker reasoned, "Well, I remember that at the last missionary conference, our church showed slides "
One of the church officers put his hand up signaling him to cease talking. Then, in these words, he emphatically explained the conflict: "If it's still, fine. If it moves, sin!" You can show slides, but when they start movin', you're gettin' into sin.
At first glance verse 41 seems cursory, "Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man." Why does mark mention this touch? Does he want to point out that Jesus took the risk of getting Leprosy? Does he want us to understand the depth of Christ's compassion that he would touch a leper? Is he simply trying to describe the moment? Unfortunately these are not the reasons that Mark carefully describes the touch. It is this TOUCH that gets Jesus into trouble with the religious leaders. It is this direct contact with a leper that banishes Jesus from Galilee. Mark's point is that Jesus broke the Mosaic law when he reached out and touched the man. In Leviticus the law states that a person is unclean if he has an infectious disease such as sores on the skin, and anyone who touches him becomes unclean and has sinned.
Doesn't this sound like our legalistic attitude today? If you heal a leper, fine. If you touch him, sin! You can heal all you want, but when you start touching lepers, your breaking the law and gettin' into sin. Because Jesus touched the leper he was regarded as unclean and a sinner.
Not only was the leper banished from the community but Jesus also because he chose compassion over ceremonial law they drove him out of the town because he chose to touch a man who was "unclean." Describe the sick and hurting as ceremonially unclean and you do not have to deal with them.
33. A Bent Over Woman
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
The woman with the battered face. Several years back that battered face was splashed all over the media. The woman's name was Hedda Nussbaum. She came to public attention as a dramatic witness for the prosecution in the death of her adopted daughter, Lisa.
Hedda Nussbaum was a vulnerable person already in her early years. She says that when she was a child, "I just went where I was taken." She just obeyed orders. Not surprisingly, she fell in love with a man who loved to give orders. His name was Joel Steinberg. He was an attorney. "I just loved to hear him talk," Hedda said of Joel. "Basically, I worshipped him. He was the most wonderful man I had ever met. I believed he had supernatural, godlike power." Friends of Hedda Nussbaum described her as a person in search of a god. She thought she had found a god in Joel Steinberg.
Hedda moved in with Joel! Two years later the beatings began. Joel Steinberg was an abusive person. The system that was created in the pairing of Hedda Nussbaum and Joel Steinberg was a very sick system. Hedda needed a god. Joel was a controlling and manipulative man. They chose each other. It was to be a fatal choice!
Joel Steinberg had Hedda Nussbaum totally under his control. He told her where she could go, whom she could talk to, what she should do at work and so on. He forbade her to see her parents. And, he beat her. She reported finally that he hit her violently time and time again. Her spleen was ruptured by one of his blows and she had to have it removed. Her knee was damaged, she was burned, her sexual organs were beaten with a broomstick, some of her teeth were knocked out, her hair was pulled out. A New York City doctor described Hedda's case as, "absolutely the worst case of wife battering I've ever seen. She was a slave," he said, "totally submissive to this man, with no ability or will to save her own daughter."
Hedda Nussbaum was a nobody. She was a thoroughly "bent over" woman. "I'm a piece of ----," Joel made her write over and over. She wrote it and she believed it.
The tragedy that brought Hedda Nussbaum and Joel Steinberg to the courtroom and to public knowledge was the death of their daughter, Lisa. Mr. Steinberg was going out one evening. Lisa wondered if he was going to take her with him. Hedda told her to go to the bathroom and ask him. She did. Joel Steinberg proceeded to knock her unconscious. Hedda didn't know what to do with this lifeless body. "Don't worry," Joel said, "just let her sleep. I will get her up when I get back."
Hedda waited. She was confused. She was so dependent on Joel's every command, so convinced of his healing power, that she did nothing for Lisa. She was simply paralyzed. Consequently, Lisa died three days later. Hedda could have saved her. But to act on her own would have been an act of disloyalty to Steinberg. She was not a free person. She was not free to act. She was, indeed, a "bent over" woman with not an ounce of self-esteem left in her.
And Hedda is not alone in this world. In the United States alone 1.8 million women are battered every year. Some form of violence occurs in 25 percent of all marriages. On and on the statistics roll. There are "bent over" women everywhere. Who shall stand them straight again?
34. Understanding Joy in the Gospel
Illustration
Dean Lueking
There was an old Dutch preacher who served two congregations in Holland, one on either side of a dike. The only way he could get to both on winter Sunday mornings was to skate across the frozen body of water separating the two churches. When he asked permission of his ecclesiastical elders to skate the distance, they reluctantly agreed – but only on the stipulation that he would not enjoy doing so.
That story illustrates a much larger problem, the problem of knowing God only under the Law and never under the Gospel. Don't let that blight cripple your spirit and rob your faith of the delighting in God, the enjoyment of his grace and abundant goodness.
35. Servants of the Most High
Illustration
Brett Blair
In Letters to Scattered Pilgrims, by Elizabeth O'Conner, envisions that Christians can transform the world. Listen to her vision: "If we are each obedient to our visions the cities would have green spaces, birds in their trees, and architecture to quicken the awareness of the divine life throbbing in the whole of the world. And the towns? the towns would have galleries to hold the works of their artists; theaters for the performing arts would spring up in their squares; scientists and poets would confer with each other; students would gather for debate and reflection, children would want to continue in life, and church congregations everywhere would be struggling 'to make serious use of the wings the creator had given.' Everyone would know what it meant to be the servant of the Most High."
Okay. Now, when I hear words like this,I want to respond with, "I am the Walrus,goo goo g'joob." Beatles fans will understand.
This kind of Utopian Christianity is only possible in a perfect world. It is even said that John Lennon later disavowed his secular version of this starry eyed optimism, his song Imagine. Even as the best of Christians, we struggle with sin: revenge, hatred, lying, sexual desires. Paul understood the struggle. What he wanted to do, he did not do. What he did not want to do, he did. The great Apostle lived with the same tensions as you and me.
Now I'm going to say something controversial. Here it is: When we become Christians we do not lose our sinful nature. That's what I hear Paul saying in Romans 7. So, where do we find the freedom our hearts so desperately need?Paul pivots in chapter 8 and answers his own dilemma: There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,because through Christ Jesus I have been freed from the law of sin and death.
You hear that? Forgiveness. That's the victory. And, that's our freedom.
36. Paid In Full
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The story istold of a man who was caught and taken to court because he had stolen a loaf of bread. When the judge investigated, he found out that the man had no job, and his family was hungry. He had tried unsuccessfully to get work and finally, to feed his family, he had stolen a loaf of bread. Although recognizing the extenuating circ*mstances, the judge said, “I’m sorry, but the law can make no exceptions. You stole, and therefore I have to punish you. I order you to pay a fine of ten dollars.” He then continued, “But I want to pay the fine myself.” He reached into his pocket, pulled out a ten-dollar bill, and handed it to the man.
As soon as the man took the money, the judge said, “Now I also want to remit the fine.” That is, the man could keep the money. “Furthermore, I am going to instruct the bailiff to pass around a hat to everyone in this courtroom, and I am fining everyone in this courtroom fifty cents for living in a city where a man has to steal in order to have bread to eat.” The money was collected and given to the defendant.
This is an excellent example of justice being meted out in full and paid in full—while mercy and grace were also enacted in full measure.
37. The Wild Goose
Illustration
Mickey Anders
Celtic Christians chose, not the dove, but the wild goose as a symbol representing the Holy Spirit. It sounds strange to us, but it has a long tradition in Ireland.
While the Roman Church imagined the Holy Spirit in the form of a peaceful, graceful dove, the Ancient Celts understood the Holy Spirit to be like a wild goose. When you hear of the Spirit descending like a heavenly dove on you, you hear harps and strings softly playing and get a peaceful feeling. The image of the Holy Spirit as dove has become so familiar and domesticated an image we pay little attention.
The image of a wild goose descending upon you is a different matter altogether. A wild goose is one noisy, bothersome bird. I like this image of the Holy Spirit as a wild goose because it jars us out of our complacency. We need such an image to correct our overly safe and overly sweet image of the Spirit. One preacher friend asked, "How many times can you sing 'There's a Sweet, Sweet Spirit in This Place' without your blood sugar reaching diabetic levels?"
When the Spirit comes in the Bible, it never seems to be sweet or safe. God's Spirit called the prophets to speak to Israel in words that were bold and sometimes dangerous. Ezekiel saw a vision of God's Spirit blowing through a valley of dry bones and bringing them to life. John the Baptist dressed in camel's hair and eating wild locusts proclaimed, "I baptize you with water but he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Paul gave this advice to young Timothy, "For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline" (2 Timothy 1:6-7).
Neither safe nor tame, the Spirit inspired Paul to proclaim, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).
It was this wild Goose that Jesus referred to when he preached his first sermon and quoted Isaiah, saying, "For the Spirit of the Lord is upon me for he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of God's favor" (Luke 4:18).
38. A Free Gift
Illustration
Robert Farrar Capon
You're worried about permissiveness in the way the preaching of grace seems to say it's okay to do all kinds of terrible things as long as you just walk in afterward and take the free gift of God's forgiveness. While you and I may be worried about seeming to give permission, Jesus apparently wasn't. He wasn't afraid of giving the prodigal son a kiss instead of a lecture, a party instead of probation; and he proved that by bringing in the elder brother at the end of the story and having him raise pretty much the same objections you do. He's angry about the party. He complains that his father is lowering standards and ignoring virtue that music, dancing, and a fatted calf are, in effect, just so many permissions to break the law. And to that, Jesus has the father say only one thing: "Cut that out! We're not playing good boys and bad boys any more. Your brother was dead and he's alive again. The name of the game from now on is resurrection, not bookkeeping.
39. Some Rules Need to be Broken
Illustration
Larry Powell
Let us fabricatea situation in order to refer to an actual circ*mstance. Suppose that your family doctor spent the better part of his time enjoying the company of his cohorts, all of them healthy, sharing a common interest, and preserving the clinic by keeping it in good repair, yet never associated with persons beset by maladies. The clinic has been the medical center for as long as anyone can remember, but is used primarily for research and as a place to house medical books. The doctors are far too involved with perusing the records, studying cures, and maintaining the dignity of medicine to bother themselves with the sick and infirm. To carry this hypothetical situation further, let us say that a new doctor appears in town, totally unrelated to the time-honored clinic, independent of the guild. He seeks out the diseased, actually associates with them, and proceeds to cure their ailments. Immediately, the professional guild begins to question his credentials and stirs up public opinion against him.
Now read Mark 2:15-17. Jesus has invited certain tax collectors and "sinners" to dinner in his own home. The scribes and Pharisees, no doubt chaffed because Jesus had not invited them instead, raised a question which is, in fact, unintelligible for men of their profession: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Why was he not at the holy of holies with them observing proper rituals and diet? Why did he not take his fellowship with the saints, the "clean" and righteous? Jesus not only explained the messianic format, he also reprimanded them for their insular hypocrisy: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
The Pharisees were monitors of the Law. It is true ... there must always be individuals around us to call our attention to the rules, but it is an additional gift of grace when such persons possess at least a minimum of common sense. Some years ago, I received a telephone call from a parishioner who desperately pleaded that I come immediately to her house and rush her to the emergency room of a local hospital. Knowing that she had been experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy, I did not ask questions, but quickly ran to the car and hurried to her house. She was waiting on the front porch as I drove into the driveway. As I helped her into the car, she kept saying, "Hurry, hurry!" In a matter of moments I drove up to the entrance of the emergency room, jumped from the car and started around to open the door to assist the young lady inside. Even before I could reach the other side of the car, a man in uniform came charging from behind the sliding glass doors shouting, "You can’t park here ... this area must be kept open for emergency!" I explained to him that this was an emergency. "I can’t help that," he said, "you’ll have to move the car before you can bring her in." I had to move the car, park it at a considerable distance from the emergency room entrance and almost carry the expectant mother into the hospital. As I mentioned, there must always be individuals to remind us of the rules, but it is an additional gift of grace if they have a minimum of common sense.
The Pharisees scolded Jesus for associating with sinners (Mark 2:16), chastized him for plucking grain for nourishment on the sabbath (23-28), and rebuked him for healing a man with a withered hand on the same day (3:1-6). Jesus was threatening their security, their positions, and assuming their authority. Not surprisingly, rather than reassessing their own witness, they dug in all the more, and "stirred up the people against him."
40. Mary Had the Little Lamb
Illustration
Marv & Marbeth Rosenthal
Mary Had The Little Lamb
Mary had the little Lamb, who lived before His birth;
Self-existent Son of God, from Heaven He came to Earth.
Micah 5:2
Mary had the little Lamb; see Him in yonder stall
Virgin-born Son of God, to save man from the Fall.
Isaiah 7:14
Mary had the little Lamb, obedient Son of God;
Everywhere the Father led, His feet were sure to trod.
John 6:38
Mary had the little Lamb, crucified on the tree
The rejected Son of God, He died to set men free.
1 Peter 1:18
Mary had the little Lamb men placed Him in the grave,
Thinking they were done with Him; to death He was no slave!
Matthew 28:6
Mary had the little Lamb, ascended now is He;
All work on Earth is ended, our Advocate to be.
Hebrews 4:14-16
Mary had the little Lame mystery to behold!
From the Lamb of Calvary, a Lion will unfold.
Revelation 5: 5,6
When the Day Star comes again, of this be very sure:
It won't be Lamb-like silence, but with the Lion's roar.
Psalm 2:12
Revelation 19:11-16
41. The Law and the Gospel
Illustration
David Ernst
The primary purpose of the Law is, like a mirror, to teach man the true knowledge of his sin. We see this in the example of the publican. The publicans were tax-collectors for the Roman imperialists. They were Jews, but were not respected by their people. They were considered traitors and thieves, with some justification.
So the publican did not approach God with pride, demanding what was owed him. On the contrary, he approached the Lord with maximum humility and true repentance. Repentance is essential to receive the forgiveness of sins in Christ. That is why the Law should be preached to unrepentant sinners, but the Gospel to those who are troubled by their sins and terrified of damnation.
The Law demands, threatens and condemns; the Gospel promises, gives and confirms our forgiveness and salvation. God offers forgiveness of sins only in the Good News that we are saved because Christ fulfilled the Law, suffered, died and rose from the dead for us. So let us draw near to God in humility and repentance, of course, but also in the hope and faith that we are justified through faith, not by works, and that in Christ we are children of God.
42. Selling Yourself As A Slave
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Well before Paul was born, there had been a Roman law stating that no freeborn man could be enslaved. Therefore, a man could literally sell himself into slavery, collect the proceeds, then have a friend come and attest to his status as a freeborn man, and he would have to be released at once. This caused havoc with the Roman economy, which was well oiled by its slave labor. Therefore, just before Paul’s day, a new law was enacted whereby any man who sold himself into slavery could no longer claim free status later. The law could no longer help him. It was therefore clear to Paul’s readers in Rome that “to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slave you are.”
43. In the President's Pockets
Illustration
Charles Swindoll
About halfway through a PBS program on the Library of Congress, Dr. Daniel Boorstin, the Librarian of Congress, brought out a little blue box from a small closet that once held the library's rarities. The label on the box read: "Contents of the president's pockets on the night of April 14, 1865. Since that was the fateful night Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, every viewer's attention was seized. Boorstin then proceeded to remove the items in the small container and display them on camera. There were five things in the box:
- A handkerchief, embroidered "A. Lincoln"
- A country boy's pen knife
- A spectacles case repaired with string
- A purse containing a $5 bill Confederate money(!)
- Some old and worn newspaper clippings
"The clippings," said Boorstin, "were concerned with the great deeds of Abraham Lincoln. And one of them actually reports a speech by John Bright which says that Abraham Lincoln is "one of the greatest men of all times." Today that's common knowledge. The world now knows that British statesman John Bright was right in his assessment of Lincoln, but in 1865 millions shared quite a contrary opinion. The President's critics were fierce and many. His was a lonely agony that reflected the suffering and turmoil of his country ripped to shreds by hatred and a cruel, costly war. There is something touchingly pathetic in the mental picture of this great leader seeking solace and self-assurance from a few old newspaper clippings as he reads them under the flickering flame of a candle all alone in the Oval Office. Remember this: Loneliness stalks where the buck stops.
44. This Tithing Business Has to Stop!
Illustration
Bob Younts
Leighton Farrell was the minister of Highland Park Church in Dallas for many years. He tells of a man in the church who once made a covenant with his pastor to tithe ten percent of their income every year. They were both young and neither of them had much money. But things changed. The layman tithed one thousand dollars the year he earned ten thousand, ten thousand dollars the year he earned one-hundred thousand, and one- hundred thousand dollars the year he earned one million. But the year he earned six million dollars he just could not bring himself to write out that check for six-hundred thousand dollars to the Church.
He telephoned the minister, long since having moved to another church, and asked to see him. Walking into the pastor's office the man begged to be let out of the covenant, saying, "This tithing business has to stop. It was fine when my tithe was one thousand dollars, but I just cannot afford six-hundred thousand dollars. You've got to do something, Reverend!" The pastor knelt on the floor and prayed silently for a long time. Eventually the man said, "What are you doing? Are you praying that God will let me out of the covenant to tithe?" "No," said the minister. "I am praying for God to reduce your income back to the level where one thousand dollars will be your tithe!"
45. Looking Down the Barrel
Illustration
In 1832, Abraham Lincoln returned from New Orleans to New Salem, Illinois. On credit, Lincoln bought an interest in a general store with William Berry. After a year or so of trying to make a go of it, they found themselves more in debt. On the front porch of his little country store in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln and Berry, his partner, stood. Business was all gone, and Berry asked, "How much longer can we keep this going?"
Lincoln answered, "It looks as if our business has just about winked out." Then he continued, "You know, I wouldn't mind so much if I could just do what I want to do. I want to study law. I wouldn't mind so much if we could sell everything we've got and pay all our bills and have just enough left over to buy one book Blackstone's Commentary on English Law, but I guess I can't." A strange-looking wagon was coming up the road. The driver angled it up close to the store porch, then looked at Lincoln and said, "I'm trying to move my family out west, and I'm out of money. I've got a good barrel here that I could sell for fifty cents." Abraham Lincoln's eyes went along the wagon and came to the wife looking at him pleadingly, face thin and emaciated. Lincoln ran his hand into his pocket and took out, according to him, "the last fifty cents I had" and said, "I reckon I could use a good barrel."
All day long the barrel sat on the porch of that store. Berry kept chiding Lincoln about it. Late in the evening Lincoln walked out and looked down into the barrel. He saw something in the bottom of it, papers that he hadn't noticed before. His long arms went down into the barrel and, as he fumbled around, he hit something solid. He pulled out a book and stood petrified: it was Blackstone's Commentary on English Law. Lincoln later wrote, "I stood there holding the book and looking up toward the heavens. There came a deep impression on me that God had something for me to do and He was showing he now that I had to get ready for it. Why this miracle otherwise?"
46. Til the Last Breath
Illustration
Major Sullivan Ballou of the Union Army wrote this letter to his wife Sarah. One week later, Major Ballou was killed at the first battle of Bull Run:
"I have no misgivings about or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged and my courage does not falter. I know how American civilization leans upon the triumph of the government. I know how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing, perfectly willing, to lay down the joys of this life to help maintain this government and to help pay that debt.
"Sarah, my love for you is deathless. It seems to bind me with many cables that nothing but Omnipotence can break. And yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly with all those chains to the battlefield. The memory of all those blissful moments I have enjoyed with you come crowding over me, and I feel most grateful to God and you that I have enjoyed them for so long. And how hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the future years, when God willing, we might have loved and lived together, and watched our boys grow up around us to honorable manhood. If I do not return my dear Sarah, never forget how much I loved you nor that when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield it will whimper your name."
47. Twice Named
Illustration
Brett Blair
Repeating a person's name is a Hebrew expression of intimacy. When God speaks to Abraham at Mount Moriah, as he is about to plunge the knife into the breast of Isaac, He says, "Abraham, Abraham." Or when God encourages Jacob in his old age to take the trip to Egypt, He says, "Jacob, Jacob" (Genesis 22:11, 46:2). Compare the call of Moses from the burning bush: "Moses, Moses," or the call of Samuel in the night, "Samuel, Samuel" (Exodus 3:4; 1 Sam 3:10). Or consider David's cry of agony, "Absalom, Absalom," and Jesus' cry of desolation on the cross, "My God, my God." (2 Samuel 18:33; Matt 27:46). When Jesus comforted Martha, when He warned Peter, and when He wept over Jerusalem in each case we find the word repeated for intimacy's sake (Luke 10:41; 22:31; Matt 23:37).
So when Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven," he is pointing out a false intimacy. People who say they love God, and use the right language, but in truth their hearts are far away.
48. Where's Jesus? Where Do You Look for Jesus?
Illustration
You have perhaps heard the story of an elderly man who was quite ill who said to his wife, "You know, Sarah, you've always been with me - through the good and through the bad. Like the time I lost my job - you were right there by my side. And the war came, and I enlisted - you became a nurse so you could be with me. Then I was wounded, and you were there, Sarah, right by my side. Then the Depression hit, and we had nothing - but you were there with me. When our son got into trouble and we didn't know what to do, once again you were right there by my side. And now, here I am, sick as a dog, and as always, you're right here beside me. You know, Sarah, you're bad luck!
49. Building In Bondage
Illustration
Sarah Winchester's husband had acquired a fortune by manufacturing and selling rifles. After he died of influenza in 1918, she moved to San Jose, California. Because of her grief and her long time interest in spiritism, Sarah sought out a medium to contact her dead husband. The medium told her, "As long as you keep building your home, you will never face death."
Sarah believed the spiritist, so she bought an unfinished 17-room mansion and started to expand it. The project continued until she died at the age of 85. It cost 5 million dollars at a time when workmen earned 50 cents a day. The mansion had 150 rooms, 13 bathrooms, 2,000 doors, 47 fireplaces, and 10,000 windows. And Mrs. Winchester left enough materials so that they could have continued building for another 80 years.
Today that house stands as more than a tourist attraction. It is a silent witness to the dread of death that holds millions of people in bondage.
50. The Ties That Bind
Illustration
Bruce Shelley
In modern times we define a host of relations by contracts. These are usually for goods or services and for hard cash. The contract, formal or informal, helps to specify failure in these relationships. The Lord did not establish a contract with Israel or with the church. He created a covenant. There is a difference. Contracts are broken when one of the parties fails to keep his promise. If, let us say, a patient fails to keep an appointment with a doctor, the doctor is not obligated to call the house and inquire, "Where were you? Why didn't you show up for your appointment?" He simply goes on to his next patient and has his appointment secretary take note of the patient who failed to keep the appointment. The patient may find it harder the next time to see the doctor. He broke an informal contract.
According to the Bible, however, the Lord asks: "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!" (Isaiah 49:15) The Bible indicates the covenant is more like the ties of a parent to her child than it is a doctor's appointment. If a child fails to show up for dinner, the parent's obligation, unlike the doctor's, isn't canceled. The parent finds out where the child is and makes sure he's cared for. One member's failure does not destroy the relationship. A covenant puts no conditions on faithfulness. It is the unconditional commitment to love and serve.
Showing
1
to
50
of
159
results
- UK tribunal member rebuked for bias in Christian teacher’s case: 'Undermining trust'
- Jeremiah Johnson’s brother claims he faked pro-Trump prophecies, visions
- Calvin Robinson warns UK on 'cusp of a civil war' amid simmering tensions, riots
- Episcopal Church launches AI chatbot ‘AskCathy’
- Biden opens up about why he quit race, points to pressure from Democrats: ‘A transition president’
- Illinois law threatens religious employers' right to hire staff who share their beliefs, ADF warns
- Archaeologists uncover quarry stones possibly used to build road walked by Jesus, disciples
- Harrison Butker defends speech comments as he becomes NFL's highest-paid kicker
- 'So many questions, so few answers': Nelon daughter's faith endures amid tragic plane crash
- Iranian 'surprise' attack on Israel could 'even last three to four days,' says Iranian lawmaker
- Died: Patricia Gundry, Evangelical Feminist Who Wanted Women to Be Free
- Some Churches Lose Coverage as Insurers Hit by a Wave of Storm Claims
- The Olympics’ Most Iconic Photo Has a Christian Message
- Died: Doris Brougham, Missionary Who Taught English to Taiwan
- Walz’s Brand Is More Left than Lutheran Among Minnesota Evangelicals
- Why Changes to India’s Colonial Criminal Code Concern Christians
- Gordon College Loses Religious Liberty Case for Loan Forgiveness
- Yes, Fiji Olympians Are Singing Hymns
- Churches Find a Homelessness Solution in Their Own Backyards
- Venezuelan Churches Brace for Migration Wave After Disputed Maduro Election
- A woman dies after being caught in a baggage carousel, and more shocking news
- Queenie Hallegua, second-to-last Jewish resident of historic Indian Jewish community, dies at 89
- 4 Signs That A Marriage Is Sure To End In Divorce—By A Psychologist
- Prominent German cantor and opera singer is killed in what police say was a family dispute
- To the Left, Now Even Viewpoint Diversity Is ‘White Supremacy’
- Triptii Dimri and Avinash Tiwary’s Laila Majnu Goes From Box Office Dud To Soft Hit After Its Rerelease
- Stretched 12 inches on the rack, crushed in iron maidens… or killed with an 'anal pear': Terrifying...
- The Druze Religion, Explained
- Iran’s Chief Rabbi observes Tisha B’Av in Tehran - watch
- Megan Basham Reveals How ‘Non-Christian Billionaires’ Are Co-opting Churches For Democrats
- Where is the Most Religious Place in the World?
- Bigoted Kamala Harris and Her Long History of Faith-Based Discrimination
- Why the Temple Curtain was Torn in Two When Jesus Died
- Parishes Preparing Their People for...What Exactly?
- 10 Years After Ferguson: What Does It Mean to Be the Church?
- You Cannot Lie Your Way to the Truth
- American Gen Z: Depressed and Spiritually Hungry
- Time to Reclaim Jewish Indigeneity
- Case Dismissed Against Man Charged in Death of Synagogue Leader
- New Book Explores Richard Nixon's Religious Journey
