Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

Any contemptuous expression that rejects God’s authority and questions his nature. Blasphemers include wicked enemies who mock God (Pss. 10:3, 13; 74:18), and God’s people who reject the authority of his word (Isa. 1:4; 5:24).

This provides the foundation for the NT material. When the Pharisees wrongfully attributed Jesus’ power to drive out demons to Beelzebul, Jesus declared that every sin and blasphemy would be forgiven, even speaking a word against the Son of Man, but not blaspheming or speaking against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:2232). The Spirit’s work was evident in the powerful demonstration they had seen. To attribute Jesus’ work to Satan was a complete affront to the majesty of God.

Stephen was accused of speaking words of blasphemy against Moses and God (Acts 6:11), and Saul of Tarsus, in his vendetta against Christians, went from one synagogue to another trying to force early Christians to blaspheme (Acts 26:11). Later, knowing that he was “the worst of sinners,” he acknowledged that he was a “blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man” (1Tim. 1:13–16). Knowing the seriousness of the offense, Paul declared that he handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan so they would be taught not to blaspheme (1Tim. 1:20).

The source of all blasphemy will make its appearance in the final eschatological confrontation: on the heads of the beast will be a blasphemous name (Rev. 13:1; cf. 17:3), and it will utter blasphemy against God, his temple, and his people (13:5, 6). Paul describes this same scenario in 2Thess. 2:3–4, where “the man of lawlessness” sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Finally, when the bowls of wrath are poured out on the earth, those who refuse to repent will curse God (Rev. 16:9, 11, 21), the final blasphemy.

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

To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:12; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.

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

The Bible contains many references to minerals and metals. Minerals can encompass a wide array of topics, thus the focus here is on valuable minerals such as ornamental stones as well as precious and useful metals.

Copper. References to copper within the Bible are few. Several passages discuss the basic origins of copper, such as the gathering of ore or the smelting process (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 24:11). Several NT passages acknowledge the presence of minted copper coins as currency (Matt. 10:9; Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2). Pure copper, however, was hard to use, although it could be combined with tin to make the alloy bronze.

Bronze. The first biblical reference to bronze is found in Gen. 4:22, in which we are told that Tubal-Cain forged tools out of bronze and iron. Next, bronze is mentioned in its use in the tabernacle built in the desert. Among the bronze items included were the many bronze clasps and bases for the tent construction (Exod. 26:11, 37; 27:1011, 17–19). The altar and all its utensils were made of, or overlaid with, bronze (27:1–8). God also instructed Moses to make a bronze basin for washing (30:18). Moses also made a snake out of bronze and placed it on top of his staff when the Israelites were struck with an abundance of venomous snakes (Num. 21:9). Samson was bound with shackles of bronze (Judg. 16:21), and Goliath wore armor and carried weapons of bronze (1Sam. 17:5–6). Solomon used an extensive amount of bronze in his building of the temple (2Kings 25:16), and there was bronze in the statue that Daniel dreamed of (Dan. 2:32, 35). Many of the prophets used bronze as a way to discuss something that was to be strong or strengthened by God (Isa. 45:2; Jer. 1:18; Ezek. 40:3).

Iron and steel. One of the earliest references to iron in Scripture is its use by the Canaanites to make chariots (Josh. 17:16, 18). This would have been an early use of the metal in the Iron AgeI period (1200–1000 BC). Also, Goliath’s spear, which was as big as a weaver’s rod, is said to have had a head made of iron (1Sam. 17:7). Elisha’s miracle of making a borrowed ax head float (2Kings 6:6) shows the continued value of the metal. In his latter days, David amassed iron among the goods to give Solomon to use in building the temple (1Chron. 22:14; 29:2); Solomon later used these materials with the help of Huram-Abi (2Chron. 2:13–14). Ezekiel discusses the economic value of iron in the context of trading (Ezek. 27:12, 19), and Daniel uses it as a metaphor for discussing strength (Dan. 2:40–41). The NT recognizes the strength of iron when discussing Christ’s iron scepter (Rev. 2:27; 19:15).

Tin. Tin was initially used mainly to produce the copper alloy bronze. Tin was not used in its pure form until well into the Roman period, and even then seldom by itself. The sources of tin in the ancient world are currently debated. The tin from large deposits in Tarshish in southern Spain (Ezek. 27:12) was available through Phoenician traders. Tin is also found in large deposits in Anatolia, but it is currently unknown whether these deposits had been discovered and used during biblical times. A third option is modern-day Afghanistan. Archaeologists have discovered in modern Turkey the remains of a wrecked ship, dated to around 1350 BC, that was carrying ten tons of copper ingots and about one ton of tin ingots. These ingots possibly originated in the area of modern-day Afghanistan and were bound for the Mediterranean trade routes. Tin is mentioned only four times in Scripture, always within a list of other metals (Num. 31:22; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 27:12).

Lead. Lead was used early in human history, but its applications were few. It would have been mined with copper and silver ore and then extracted as a by-product. The Romans used it for various implements, most notably wine vessels. It is referenced nine times within Scripture, either in a list or in reference to its weight. The only two times it is referenced as an object is when Job mentions a lead writing implement (Job 19:24), and when Zechariah has the vision of a woman sitting in the basket with a lead cover (Zech. 5:7, 8).

Gold and silver. Sought after for much of human history, gold and silver have been worked by humans for their ornamental value. The practical uses of these metals within the biblical setting were constrained mainly to their economic and ornamental value. Gold and silver jewelry were used as a form of payment and were minted into coins during the Greco-Roman era. Gold objects are relatively scarce in archaeological finds, mainly because most gold items would have been part of a large treasury carried off as tribute or plunder. Silver appears in the archaeological record more frequently; a remarkable hoard of silver in lump form was found at Eshtemoa (see 1Sam. 30:26–28). This silver has been dated to the time of the kingdom of Judah, after the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen. The silver in raw lump form was most likely used as a monetary payment, even though it had not yet been minted into coins.

Gold in the ancient world came largely from Egypt and northern Africa. The Bible mentions Havilah as a land of gold (Gen. 2:11), as well as Ophir (1Kings 9:28), but the exact location of both places is unknown. Silver was mined in southern Spain, along with other metals, and brought to the area through sea trading. The Athenians of the Classical period were also known for their vast silver-mining operations.

Silver and gold are mentioned repeatedly in the OT in reference to their uses in trading and their economic value. Most notably, the Israelites asked their Egyptian neighbors to give them gold and silver items just before they left Egypt (Exod. 3:22). The tabernacle was highly ornamented with these two metals, as was the temple built by Solomon. It is said that Solomon made the nation so wealthy that silver was considered as plentiful as stone (1Kings 10:27). Perhaps the most notorious articles of silver within Scripture are those paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus (Matt. 26:15).

Precious stones. Stones of various origins were used in and around Palestine. The Bible makes few references to their use. Like gold and silver, they were used mainly for their ornamental value. Their scarcity made them highly prized. One notable exception is turquoise. The Egyptian pharaohs were fascinated with turquoise, and they mined extensively for it on the Sinai Peninsula. The remains of several turquoise mines have been found with Canaanite markings, indicating the presence of Canaanite slaves working the Egyptian mines. There was also a line of forts along the northern edge of the Egyptian Empire, used presumably to protect the pharaohs’ turquoise interests. Precious stones were also found in Syria, where Phoenician traders would have been able to bring them from other parts of the known world.

Exodus 28:17–21 describes twelve stones set in the breastpiece worn by the Israelite high priest. Twelve stones likewise appear in the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20). Ezekiel uses nine of these same twelve stones to discuss the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:13).

The Bible uses the blanket term “precious stones” to denote a hoard of riches, such as that owned by Solomon (1Kings 10:10).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:56) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Cleanness does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (various discharges; e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Ceremonial cleansing is not just a topic in the OT; it appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

Fasting, often linked with prayer, was one avenue of appeal to God in the face of crises, both national and personal. Moses ascended to Mount Sinai and was with God forty days and nights without eating bread or drinking water, both before and after the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:818). David fasted when his son was dying (2Sam. 12:15–23). Esther called all the Jews of Susa to fast for three days before she ventured before the king (Esther 4:15–17). Joel called the people to repentance and fasting as the land was devastated by a locust plague (Joel 1:13–14; 2:12). Forty days of fasting, an echo of Moses’ experience, prepared Jesus to face the devil’s temptations (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.).

The OT prophets criticized Israelites who presumed that their religious obligations were met simply by fasting (Isa. 58:1–10; Zech. 7:1–5). When asked why his disciples did not fast and pray, Jesus indicated that sometimes fasting is inappropriate (Matt. 9:14–17 pars.). Luke recorded an addition to Jesus’ statement about new wine in old wineskins: “No one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better’” (Luke 5:39), perhaps suggesting that the accumulation of fasting practices was “new wine” and they ought simply to observe the Day of Atonement.

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.

Generally speaking, in Scripture the word “fool” is used to describe someone in a morally deprived state. It does not, as in contemporary American usage, refer to a person’s lack of intellectual ability or to one whose actions convey those of a buffoon. Terms for “fool” appear all through Scripture, but wisdom literature contains the highest concentration. Proverbs uses over half a dozen words to describe the fool. All of them indicate some kind of moral breach and fall on a scale from the most morally hardened to the naive.

Obstinacy, recalcitrance, and closed-mindedness characterize the morally dense fool. Such individuals have no use for advice from others because they are “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 3:7; cf. 12:15; 16:2). Fools frequently scoff at correction and rebuke (9:78, 12; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12; 19:25; 20:1; 21:11, 24; 22:10; 24:9). They manifest arrogance (21:24). Fools do not learn from their own mistakes or those of others but instead often repeat them (26:11). One of the main problems is that fools “lack sense,” which ultimately implies that they lack character (see 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12; 12:11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30). Such a person consistently makes poor decisions and loses the appetite and passion necessary for acquiring wisdom.

According to the book of Proverbs, three qualities make up the essential nature of the fool. First, the fool is unwilling to learn by means of discipline (3:11–12; 17:10), or formal instruction (17:16), or a word of advice (12:15), or personal experience (26:11). Second, the fool lacks self-control. Both the speech (15:2) and the behavior (14:16) of fools demonstrate a lack of restraint. They take the path of least resistance to easy money (1:8–19) and easy sex (7:6–27). Third, the fool is the one who rejects the fear of the Lord (1:7).

In the NT, the fool is the one who does not trust in God or in the power that God displays through the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:22; 1Cor. 15:36). Jesus makes references to the fool when he tells the stories of the wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24–27) and the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). Paul uses the term “foolish” to rebuke the Galatians for their refusal to accept the gospel (Gal. 3:1). However, in his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul reverses the conventional understanding of folly and uses it as a rhetorical strategy to communicate his message. He speaks of the message of the cross as foolishness to the world (1Cor. 1:18). On another occasion, in order to argue against the arrogance of his opponents, Paul engages in “a little foolishness” (2Cor. 11:1) as he boasts about his ministry, which is riddled with failure (2Cor. 11–12).

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.

Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).

It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece.

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah. Most scholars today, including many evangelical scholars, conclude that the book of Isaiah is the end result of a history of composition that began in the eighth century BC (so-called First Isaiah [139]), continued in the sixth century BC during the exile (Second Isaiah, chaps. 40–55), and then was completed after the exile (Third Isaiah, chaps. 56–66).

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Isaiah 1–39

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1= threat; 2:1–4= promise of hope; 2:5–4:1= threat; 4:2–6= promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Isaiah 40–55

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Isaiah 56–66

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

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.

Moses played a leadership role in the founding of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). Indeed, the narrative of Exodus through Deuteronomy is the story of God using Moses to found the nation of Israel. It begins with an account of his birth (Exod. 2) and ends with an account of his death (Deut. 34). Moses’ influence and importance extend well beyond his lifetime, as later Scripture demonstrates.

Moses was born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’s decree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was born to Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’s decree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floated him down the river. God guided the basket down the river and into the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:56), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hired Jochebed to take care of the child.

The next major episode in the life of Moses concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was being beaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process of rescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. When it became clear that he was known to be the killer, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became a member of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marrying his daughter Zipporah.

Although Moses was not looking for a way back into Egypt, God had different plans. One day, while Moses was tending his sheep, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and commissioned him to go back to Egypt and lead his people to freedom. Moses expressed reluctance, and so God grudgingly enlisted his older brother, Aaron, to accompany him as his spokesperson.

Upon Moses’ return to Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly refused to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. God directed Moses to announce a series of plagues that ultimately induced Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart. After they left, Pharaoh had a change of mind and cornered them on the shores of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). It was at the Red Sea that God demonstrated his great power by splitting the sea and allowing the Israelites to escape before closing it again in judgment on the Egyptians. Moses signaled the presence of God by lifting his rod high in the air (Exod. 14:16). This event was long remembered as the defining moment when God released Israel from Egyptian slavery (Pss. 77; 114), and it even became the paradigm for future divine rescues (Isa. 40:3–5; Hos. 2:14–15).

After the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses led Israel back to Mount Sinai, the location of his divine commissioning. At this time, Moses went up the mountain as a prophetic mediator for the people (Deut. 18:16). He received the Ten Commandments, the rest of the law, and instructions to build the tabernacle (Exod. 19–24). All these were part of a new covenantal arrangement that today we refer to as the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant.

However, as Moses came down the mountain with the law, he saw that the people, who had grown tired of waiting, were worshiping a false god that they had created in the form of a golden calf (Exod. 32). With the aid of the Levites, who that day assured their role as Israel’s priestly helpers, he brought God’s judgment against the offenders and also interceded in prayer with God to prevent the total destruction of Israel.

Thus began Israel’s long story of rebellion against God. God was particularly upset with the lack of confidence that the Israelites had shown when the spies from the twelve tribes gave their report (Num. 13). They did not believe that God could handle the fearsome warriors who lived in the land, and so God doomed them to forty years of wandering in the wilderness, enough time for the first generation to die. Not even Moses escaped this fate, since he had shown anger against God and attributed a miracle to his own power and not to God when he struck a rock in order to get water (Num. 20:1–13).

Thus, Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he had led the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab. There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the second generation of Israelites who were going to enter the land that they must obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of the sermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasion reaffirmed its loyalty to God.

After this, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see the promised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the following statements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.... For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

The NT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point that Jesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God and people (Acts 3:17–26; Heb. 3).

The date of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical text does not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to the thirteenth century BC and associate him with RamessesII, but others take 1Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end of the fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of ThutmoseIII.

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1 17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John 2:2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While in the OT suffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev. 26:1636; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25; cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by which blessing comes to humanity.

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

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

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

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

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

“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:1617; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).

The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.

The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).

Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.

The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.

A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).

God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:118) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).

Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).

Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)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 inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

In Christian theology, doctrine is the synthesis of Christianteaching, especially as set forth in its various related themes. Theearly disciples frequently referred to the teachings of Christ and tothe teachings of the apostles and the church. These were memorized,compiled, and passed through the generations in the church (2Tim.2). As early as Acts 2 reference is made to the teaching of theapostles and the devotion of the church to it. By the second century,a body of teaching had crystallized into a doctrinal treatise calledthe Didache. Doctrinal teaching as a set structure is especiallyemphasized in the Pastoral Epistles, such that it has caused some toconjecture a later date and early catholic outlook for those letters.Regardless of the validity of this postulation, these lettersevidence an early doctrinal and confessional outlook within thechurch.

Thiswas, of course, nothing new, since the Israelites had a body ofteaching that they had passed on through the generations: the law,both written and oral. For the Israelites, the law, both written andoral, was memorized, taught, interpreted, and heeded through all ofsociety. The church simply followed suit in forming its teachings.

Inthe NT two words, didachē and didaskalia, are commonlytranslated “teaching” and in some cases are rendered bysome translations as “doctrine.” The term didachēappears more widely throughout the NT, whereas didaskalia is usedlargely in the Pastoral Epistles (referring to both the content andthe act of teaching). The term didaskalia is sometimes used with theterm logos when the latter indicates sound speech (Titus 2:7–8)and words of the faith (1Tim. 4:6). In fact, in one verse inthe Pastoral Epistles all three terms are used together as “thefaithful word,” “in accordance with the teaching,”and “in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9 NASB).

Thefirst body of teaching for the church is the teaching of Jesus (Matt.7:28), such as that found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesusnotes the ethic of his messiahship and his followers. The teaching ofJesus, which is authoritative (Mark 1:22, 27), and confrontational(Mark 12:38), is an astonishing answer to the religious leaders(Matt. 22:33; cf. Luke 4:32). Jesus notes the vanity of teaching thehuman commandments as if they were the doctrine from God (Mark 7:7).When questioned, Jesus sets forth his teaching as from the Father(John 7:16–17). The chief priests seek to destroy both Jesusand his followers because of the teaching (Mark 11:18; John 18:19;Acts 5:28). On Cyprus the proconsul is astonished at the doctrine ofChrist taught by Paul (Acts 13:12), and in Athens Paul’steaching about Christ is new and unusual to those of the Areopagus(Acts 17:18–20).

ForPaul, doctrine is fundamental for believers. He notes the commitmentto the teaching of Christ after conversion as normative for the Romanbelievers (Rom. 6:17), and he instructs further that they keep an eyeout for those who cause division and hinder adherence to sounddoctrine (Rom. 16:17). In fact, God has given gifted people to thebody for building up the saints to avoid such doctrinal problems(Eph. 4:12–14). Further, a straightforward expression ofteaching has priority over gifts such as tongues (1Cor. 14:6,26). Paul also points out that the Colossian heresy is the doctrineof human beings rather than that of God (Col. 2:22).

Inthe Pastoral Epistles the injunction from Paul to Timothy is that hebe nourished on and persevere in sound doctrine (1Tim. 4:6, 16)and set forth doctrine in preaching (1Tim. 4:13 [along withpublic reading of Scripture]; 2Tim. 4:2). All this is certainlyfitting for Timothy, as he has followed the teaching of Paul (2Tim.3:10). The injunction to Titus is to hold to the word and to thesound doctrine and teaching as he corrects the church (Titus 1:9).Those who are servants are encouraged to show honesty and good faith,so that the teaching of the Savior will be respected (Titus 2:10). Itis clear for Paul that Scripture is the basis of doctrine (2Tim.3:16). This doctrine (teaching) will be tolerated by few; as a whole,sound doctrine will be rejected in favor of a message more palatableto human interest (2Tim. 4:3). The task of the servant of Godis to stand against heterodox teaching (1Tim. 1:3; 6:3).Heterodoxy leads to heteropraxy (1Tim. 1:10). Paul notes thedoctrine of demons, false teaching that is ultimately based insatanic teaching (1Tim. 4:1).

Theinjunction of the writer to the Hebrews is that they are not tosubmit to strange teachings, which deny grace (13:9). This accordswith the book’s argument as a whole. For John, staying in thedoctrine of Christ is salvific, but going outside it is not (2John9). John’s readers are not to receive those who pervert thedoctrine of Christ (2John 10).

Inthe book of Revelation, Jesus warns the church at Pergamum about thefalse teaching of Balaam (2:14) and that of the Nicolaitans (2:15).The church at Thyatira is likewise warned to shun the teachings ofthe false prophetess known as “Jezebel” (2:20,24).

The term “elder” is used variously in Scriptureto describe an older man, a person of authority, or an appointedleader in a church office.

OldTestament.The first instance of “elder” in the OT is in Exod. 3:16,where Moses calls the elders of Israel to gather together. These men,seventy in number, most likely were the heads of different familiesin Israel (Num. 11:16, 24; Deut. 19:12; 21:19). The term “elder”likely indicates both their function as leaders and their age. Theywere gifted leaders, but they were also wiser because of theirexperiences in life.

Eldersexercised civic and judicial authority in Israel’s cities andtowns. They made judgments of various kinds, such as disciplining arebellious son (Deut. 21:18–21), clearing the reputation of ayoung virgin girl who may have been slandered (22:13–19), andurging obedience to the law and commands of God (27:1).

NewTestament.In the Gospels “the elders” are named together with thechief priests as ruling authorities in Israel. They appear to havebeen the nonpriestly members of the Sanhedrin and, like thePharisees, scribes, and chief priests, are in frequent conflict withJesus (e.g., Matt. 16:21; 26:3; 28:12; Mark 7:3; 8:31; Luke 7:3;9:22). In the book of Acts they come into conflict with the apostlesin Jerusalem (Acts 4:23) and are involved in the sentencing andexecution of the first martyr, Stephen (6:12; 7:54–60).

Followingthe model of Judaism, leaders in the first-century church are oftenreferred to as “elders” (presbyteroi [e.g., Acts 11:30;14:23]). In the Pastoral Epistles elders and “overseers”(or “bishops” [episkopoi]) appear to denote the sameleadership office. Paul explicitly focuses on the elders’character when he lists qualifications in 1Tim. 3:1–7;Titus 1:5–9. Elders must be above reproach in character andbehavior. This includes being the husband of one wife, temperate,self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given todrunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover ofmoney. Each elder must manage his own family well and requireobedience and respect from his children. He must not be a recentconvert, and he must have a good reputation with outsiders. If theelder does not manage his own family well, how can he take care ofGod’s church (1Tim. 3:5)? God’s calling to lead thechurch requires people of godly character.

Eldersnot only teach and lead (1Tim. 3:2; 5:17), but they are alsocalled to shepherd the flock. The apostle Peter provides insight intohow an elder should lead, exhorting them to shepherd not undercompulsion but willingly and by example (1Pet. 5:1–5).They should follow the example of the chief shepherd, Jesus (5:4).This leadership must be done in humility, since God is opposed to theproud (5:5).

Thelast mention of elders in the NT is in the glimpse of heaven given inthe book of Revelation. In Rev. 19:4 twenty-four elders are said toserve in a priestly role as part of the worship before God. Theidentity of these elders is uncertain. They may be angelic beings orrepresentatives of the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelveapostles.

The vice that resents the acceptance, success, and well-beingof other people, especially when benefits come to those who areregarded as unworthy. The envious person competes with others—ifonly in his or her own mind—and therefore cannot love them,serve them, and enjoy their company. Thus, the Bible condemns envy orcovetousness, the most familiar text being the last commandment ofthe Decalogue (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). It is wrong to smolder withdesire for the advantages of one’s neighbors and also wish themto stumble. Envy incited Cain to kill Abel (Gen. 4:1–16), andScripture acknowledges its destructive tendencies (Prov. 14:30).Jesus warned his disciples that envy’s “evil eye”could defile them (Mark 7:21) and darken their souls (Matt. 6:23).

Thisvice can do enormous damage in churches and among those who professto be the people of God. Pilate recognized jealousy behind the caseagainst Jesus (Matt. 27:18), and the apostle Paul faced manydifficulties traceable to immature one-upmanship. Factions arose inthe churches over coveted associations (1Cor. 1:11–13)and spiritual gifts (1Cor. 12–13). Some professingbelievers even preached Christ simply to advance themselves ahead ofothers, out of “envy and rivalry,” perhaps to postimpressive numbers of converts and gain a following (Phil. 1:15). Inresponse, each person must say with John the Baptist, “He mustbecome greater; I must become less” (John 3:30).

Types of Food

In the biblical era, food consisted primarily of meats, cereals, vegetables, and fruits, though cereals and vegetables made up the bulk of the diet of people in the ancient Near East. Grains generally were ground into either coarse or fine flour. With or without leaven, the flour was made into a loaf of sorts, baked, and consumed. Usually, one grain was used for any particular bread, though in difficult times multiple types of grains could be combined to create a loaf large enough for consumption (Ezek. 4:9).

Vegetables and fruits were not as varied in the ancient cultures as they are today. Generally, among vegetables, the consumer was limited to various types of lentils, cucumbers, onions, and leeks. These were eaten raw or cooked. Fruits were limited to dates, grapes, melons, olives, and figs. Fruits generally were dried, but they were also eaten raw and prepared in various ways. Nuts, including almonds and pistachios, also were consumed (Gen. 43:11), as were pulses such as lentils and legumes such as beans (2Sam. 17:28).

Meat consumption usually was reserved for festivals and special occasions. The most important animals used for consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. Lamb was much more common as a dietary element than beef because it was less costly and more common. As prescribed by Scripture, the blood could not be consumed when eating meat (Lev. 17:10–11). Meat generally was boiled when prepared, though it could be roasted on a spit (1Sam. 2:15). On a rare occasion, game meat was consumed, but this was considered a delicacy (Gen. 27:5–7). In order to be considered clean and capable of being consumed, the animal from which the meat was acquired had to have chewed a cud and have a divided hoof (Lev. 11:2–8).

Fish were consumed in good quantity but are mentioned much less often in the OT than in the NT, especially the Gospels. There is mention of the Fish Gate in Jerusalem (2Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), which suggests that fish were sufficiently available to merit their own marketplace in the city. Fish were salted and dried before their consumption and seem to have been primarily an import item in Israel’s early history (Neh. 13:16), though by the time of the NT, Israel had obviously developed its own thriving fishing industry. To be ceremonially clean and fit for consumption, fish had to possess both fins and scales (thus shellfish were unclean; Lev. 11:9–12).

Animal by-products, such as honey, milk, and cheese, were a staple in Israelite diets (Deut. 32:14; Prov. 30:33; Isa. 7:15). These were stored in skins or in wooden vessels and sometimes were mixed to create a sweet milk or cheese. Milk was also used as a cooking element, though it was forbidden to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exod. 34:26).

Meals and Dietary Issues

A formal dinner or banquet typically consisted of an appetizer (usually something pickled), the meal proper, and a dessert. Wine was consumed, sometimes flavored with spices or honey. The people consuming the meal reclined at the table with their feet away from the food, thus allowing servants to continue to wash feet as necessary. Some sort of entertainment usually took place, including music, reading, or dialogue on some significant matter.

The early church struggled with various dietary issues. The first of these was the matter of the consumption of unclean animals. The events of Acts 10; 15 suggest that for the early church, these dietary laws were abandoned. In fact, of the OT regulations, only the one prohibiting the eating of meat with blood in it was enforced by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29). Paul seems to go further than this in stating that no food is unclean in and of itself (Rom. 14:14; cf. Mark 7:19). The second dietary issue centered not on the food itself, but rather on the prior use of that food, in this case meat, in pagan rituals and worship (see Food Sacrificed to Idols). Like most ancient Near Eastern cultures, the Greeks acquired some of their meat from the temples, which had a ready supply of it following religious rites and festivals. Most meat used for consumption had already been offered to an idol, and Christians debated whether it was appropriate to eat such meat. Paul responds to this question in 1Corinthians, arguing that believers are free to eat such meat if their conscience is clear in doing so, but not if doing so offends or troubles the faith of fellow believers (1Cor. 8; 10:23–11:1).

The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).

Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.

Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).

Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).

Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).

Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).

The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).

On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).

Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).

The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).

Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.

Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).

Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).

Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).

Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).

The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).

On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).

Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic andreligious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day,Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually theterm began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense,and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a wholeand religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as theinalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3;John 2:6).

TheGospels

Inthe Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely inthe phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus(Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born asthe king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the lawof Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized theimportance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27),and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the lawwithout carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not onlybecause they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also becausethey viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing theirreligious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).

TheJews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g.,Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes(the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not acceptJesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions ordenying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generallyaccepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal andother benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upperclass is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the“Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew andLuke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewishcities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating thatresistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among theJews.

Jesusresponded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation(Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servantof a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of thisGentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects ofthe kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” becauseof unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham inthe kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief ofthe Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first.Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that theyshould not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of theSamaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel”(Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).

Theterm “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synopticsoutside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-onetimes in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as atechnical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and hisfollowers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on theirrejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in uniquerelationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “oneand only”(monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what thetemple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent.John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much morewidespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting theJews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty toJewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57;9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).

Actsand the Pauline Letters

Inthe book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences)is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who opposePaul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12,14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).

Inhis letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnicand religious sense without connoting that they have theologicalantagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with theGentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirsis the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants,the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises”(Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identitythrough their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews fromfalse Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption.Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; andcircumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by thewritten code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from falseJews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel(9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is theresult of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OTprophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “childrenof Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3(Gal. 3:7–8).

Paul’spresentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statementthat the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’schildren but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44).In 1John the children of God are defined in terms of loverather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book ofRevelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, butare a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passagesshow that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather thanthrough the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaiclaw (Rom. 3:20–28).

Thesepolemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make theNT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes isneither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of theJews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who hascome in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)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 inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)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 inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

The public space in a town set up for commerce and publicgatherings; also, a region renowned for its trade. AncientPalestinian towns conducted business at the city gate, including themarshaling of troops (2Chron. 32:6) and holding of religiousassemblies (Neh. 8:1). The Phoenician seaport of Tyre was labeled the“marketplace of the nations” (Isa. 23:3), where numerousgoods, such as metalwork, ivory, fine fabrics, spices, and livestock,were exchanged with neighboring nations (Ezek. 27:12–23).

ByNT times, Herod the Great had rebuilt many Palestinian cities with acentral Greek-style marketplace, or agora, where children played(Matt. 11:16; Luke 7:32), day laborers gathered (Matt. 20:3), andreligious leaders networked (Matt. 23:7; Mark 7:4; 12:38; Luke 11:43;20:46). In the smaller Galilean villages, Jesus healed sick people inthe marketplaces (Mark 6:56). Paul suffered hostile magistrates andmobs in the Greek marketplaces of Philippi and Thessalonica (Acts16:19; 17:5), while in Athens the marketplace was his venue forpreaching to the public and curious philosophers (Acts 17:17–18).Jesus berated the sellers in the Jerusalem temple courts forimitating a marketplace (John 2:16), and Paul assured the Corinthiansthat they may eat meat of unknown provenance sold in the marketplace(1Cor. 10:25).

Although for millennia meat has been a major element in manypeople’s diets, the earliest humans did not eat it. In thegarden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve a diet of plants, particularlyfruit (Gen. 2:15–16). God first sanctioned human consumption ofanimals only after the flood, though with the stipulation that meatnot be eaten with blood remaining in it (Gen. 9:3–4; see alsoLev. 7:26; 19:26).

Inthe Mosaic law the Israelites received further restrictions from Godconcerning the meat they could consume. Among land animals, onlythose that have a split hoof and chew the cud were “clean”for the Israelites to eat (Lev. 11:1–8). When the Israelitestwice complained that they had no meat in the wilderness, Godresponded both times by sending quail. In the second instance, Godbecame angry and sent a plague among those who had eaten the meat(Exod. 16:2–13; Num. 11:1–35).

Inthe NT, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and God confirmedin a vision to Peter that he had rescinded all dietary restrictions(Acts 10:9–16). However, the Jerusalem council instructedGentile Christians to abstain from certain dietary practices thatwould be offensive to their Jewish brothers and sisters, includingeating blood and eating meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:28–29).In 1Corinthians, Paul continued the discussion of eating meatsacrificed to idols (8:4–13; 10:18–33) and therebyprovided guidance on various matters of Christian liberty.

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding theway in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desiresobedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa.29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos.6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing someof the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophetresponded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed isbetter than the fat of rams” (1Sam. 15:22).

Inthe OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar[e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4])God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed aslistening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV,NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’svoice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaiccovenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the lawsset forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, Godwould bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, hewould curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history ofIsrael sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen peopleand the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2Kings18:9–12; 2Chron. 36:11–21), even though Godrepeatedly warned the people through his prophets that thisdestruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness(e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

Inthe NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience toJesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructionsfor his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey”(Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt.28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him wouldlead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1John5:3; 2John 6), and the disciples’obedience, in turn, would cause them to remainin Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obeytheir parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō)their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20,22).

TheNT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Fatheras a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis forsalvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the lawwho will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all havesinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin forus, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”(2Cor. 5:21).

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth suchthat the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1.The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2.Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circ*mstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3.Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4.Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5.In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. TheChristian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view ofhumankind’s relationship to God.

TheOrigin of Humankind

Accordingto Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day ofthe creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day(Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of whathappened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals.Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that theyhave a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far morethan highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implicationsfor the care of animals and of the environment generally. The valueof human beings and their special place in the created order is clearin passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Createdin the image of God.Whenit came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over thiscrucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let usmake man in our image” signals that the decision to makehumankind was the most important one that God had made so far.Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Variousopinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is.We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’shumanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek.1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task,the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed ascreation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is betterunderstood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. Theimage shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from allother creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphiclanguage for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male andfemale are in the image of God (“in the image of God he createdthem; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that thedivine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation theimage. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiarquality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moralsense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Everycentury has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However,nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. Thepoint of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with noexact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basisof the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty appliedto the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected everyaspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize thefact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18);nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3;9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed atridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects ofsin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is theimage of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3;2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers inChrist to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Placein the created order.God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “sothey may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purposeclause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition ofdominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humansstewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating ofmeat at first) represents a limitation to the human right ofdominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressiveof his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bringpairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20),showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks(13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measuressaved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wantondestruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut.20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardshipof the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the humanrace populate the whole earth.

AtGen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric,picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man,so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation ofGen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last andhighest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center ofa circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connectionto the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very specialplace is given to human beings in the created order. The two picturesare complementary, not contradictory.

The“man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground”(’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’sname reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,”which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen.3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to“the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact thatthis leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30),so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, themaking of man is described using the language of death. What isdescribed in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom therest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind,though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

TheNature of Humankind

Body,soul, and spirit.Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) ortripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitraryappeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent supportfor both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g.,1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much moreprevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit”can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Deathis marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be amistake to think that human beings are made up of separate componentparts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and notessential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the“body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of thatbeing the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed(Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblicalethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of theresurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor.15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body asinherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of theliberated, disembodied soul.

Thedifferent words used in relation to persons are only intended torefer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified humannature. References to the “soul” may stress individualresponsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins willdie”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expressesemphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with“all my inmost being”—that is, “my wholebeing” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole[cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a personwho expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The“flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity(e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart”is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans aredescribed by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,”“bowels.”

Moralsand responsibility.In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to Godand his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the womanare explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work itand take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate theman’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship aboutthem, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions ofserving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served byoffering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacredprecinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented.The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

Themoral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning.God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “anytree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicatesman’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction.The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the pointabout God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded inthe description of God’s fatherly care for the man and graciousact in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slightand not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make itappear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the veryfirst words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamentalimportance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“youmust not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in thestyle of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).What is placed before the man is a test that gives him theopportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship ofobedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and theopportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moralnature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery bythe prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presuppositionbehind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“youshall not . . .”) are phrased as commands toindividuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, theconcept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’spunishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships.Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the womanas a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25).Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so thatfriendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life(Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the samefact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs andvulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with thepsalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence onGod (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride,against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9,11–17, 22).

Human pride removes God from the center of life and exaltsself, attributing to self the honor due God. Thus, pride is an act ofrebellion against God. Several lists of vices include pride (Prov.6:16–19; Mark 7:20–22; Rom. 1:28–31; 2Tim.3:2–4 KJV). Both James and Peter, in admonishing Christians toapproach God and one another in humility, quote this proverb: “Godopposes the proud but shows favor to the humble” (James 4:6;1Pet. 5:5; cf. Prov. 3:34).

Pridedestroys both individuals and nations. It destroyed individuals suchas the kings Uzziah (2Chron. 26:16), Hezekiah (2Chron.32:25–26), and Herod (Acts 12:21–23). Pride also destroysnations. It brought down Israel (Jer. 13:17; Hos. 7:10; Amos 6:1–3,8). Isaiah gives a classic description of Israel’s pride (Isa.2:6–22). God destroyed Assyria because of its pride (Isa.10:12–19). Pride was the downfall of other nations as well,such as Babylon (Jer. 50:29–32), Egypt (Ezek. 31:10–12;32:12), and Moab (Jer. 48:29). God abhors pride (Prov. 16:5; cf.Ezek. 16:50) and responds by striking it down (Prov. 15:25; 16:18;Job 22:29).

The English word “tradition” refers both to aprocess of transmitting information from generation to generation andto the content that is thus transmitted. Tradition can be oral orwritten, and in the context of theology and biblical studies itconstitutes a form of religious authority and a means of legitimatingcustoms and beliefs. Much of the biblical data concerning tradition,which comes primarily from the NT, is connected with the verbalnotion of “passing (something) on” or, conversely,“receiving (something).” There is also a noun meaning“tradition.” The writings of the NT are neither for noragainst traditional authority perse as a form of religiousauthority, but instead display a range of attitudes toward traditionand traditions.

Jesus’Critique of Jewish Tradition

Onone occasion, Jesus sharply rebuked the Pharisees and teachers of thelaw for “setting aside the commands of God in order to observeyour own traditions” (Mark 7:9 [cf. Matt. 15:1–20]). Thecontext of this remark is a dispute between Jesus and hisinterlocutors that arose when Jesus’ disciples were observedeating with unwashed hands. According to the Pharisees (as reportedby Matthew and Mark), this requirement was a “tradition of theelders” (Mark 7:5). Jesus, however, distinguished between humantraditions and the word of God, and he accused the Pharisees ofadhering to the former even when this conflicted with observance ofthe latter. Later written rabbinic sources posited two streams ofnormative tradition, both going back to Moses and Mount Sinai: thewritten law and the oral law. This distinction, or one like it, maylie behind Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and the teachersof the law. It is important to note that Jesus’ criticism oftradition is not simply formal (i.e., opposition to traditionalauthority as such) but is substantive, in that the Pharisees wereguilty of following traditions that prevented them from observing thecommands of Moses: “You nullify the word of God by yourtradition that you have handed down. And you do many things likethat” (Mark 7:13). The memory of Jesus’ antitraditionalposture was later invoked by the opponents of Stephen, who said, “Wehave heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy thisplace and change the customs Moses handed down to us” (Acts6:14).

Sucha negative view of tradition is also evident in Col. 2:8, where theapostle warns against captivity to “hollow and deceptivephilosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elementalspiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” Thesubsequent discussion elucidates to some extent the content of thetraditions that threatened to displace the primary orientation of thebeliever to life in Christ (2:6–7); these include circumcision“performed by human hands” (2:11), rules about eating,drinking, Sabbaths, and holidays (2:16), and rules of asceticismdesigned to restrain “sensual indulgence” (2:23).Interestingly, while Jesus set up an antithesis between thetraditions of the elders and the law of Moses, Col. 2:14 appears toidentify “the charge of our legal indebtedness” with thesystem that depends on human tradition rather than on Christ.

Thesituation represented by Col. 2:8–23 (dependence on traditionversus dependence on Christ) finds a similar expression in Paul’sautobiographical account in Gal. 1:11–24. There, Paul assureshis audience that the gospel he preached “is not of humanorigin” (v.11). Invoking the vocabulary of tradition, hecontinues, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taughtit; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (vv.12–13). Paul goes on to flesh out this antithesis betweenrevelation and tradition, particularly as it applies to his apostolicclaims: he is not against religious tradition as such, since he wasformerly “zealous for the traditions of my fathers”(v.14). Nonetheless, the radically nontraditional authority ofhis gospel is underscored by the fact that he did “not consultany human being” (vv. 16–17, 19). Of course, it is notlikely that Paul would desire to undermine tradition perse, ashe would himself rely on it as a means of propagating his own gospel.Indeed, he had already warned the Galatians against departing fromthe tradition that they had accepted from him (1:9) (see thediscussion of 1Cor. 15:1–11 below).

PositiveAttitudes toward Tradition

Incontrast to Jesus’ critique of the traditions of the eldersobserved by the Pharisees, a number of NT texts present thetransmission of traditions in a positive light. Chief among these isPaul’s discussion in 1Cor. 15:1–11 of the gospel hepreached in Corinth. In this text, he speaks of his own reception ofthe tradition (“For what I received” [v.3]), histransmission of the tradition to the Corinthians (“I passed onto you as of first importance” [v.3]), and the church’sreception of the tradition (“I want to remind you of the gospel... which you received” [v.1]). What follows,the content of the tradition, is a summary of the events of the deathand resurrection of Christ according to the Scriptures and hispostresurrection manifestation to the apostles, including Paulhimself (vv. 3–7). Previously in 1Corinthians, Paul hadcommended his audience for their fidelity to tradition: “Ipraise you for ... holding to the traditions just as Ipassed them on to you” (11:2). To return to the discussion ofGal. 1 and Paul’s radical break with tradition: for Paul, therevelation of Christ stood outside the prior stream of tradition inwhich he had been raised, but subsequently it became a new traditionto be passed on and to be held with as much zeal as the old (see Acts16:4; Rom. 6:17; 1Cor. 11:23; Phil. 4:9; 1Thess. 2:13;4:1–2; 2Thess. 2:15; 3:6).

LikePaul, other NT writers appeal to traditional authority as a means ofpassing on the faith. Jude urges his readers to “contend forthe faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people”(Jude 3 [cf. 2Pet. 2:21]). Luke’s credentials as ahistorian include his faithful transmission of the account of things“just as they were handed down to us by those who from thefirst were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2).Like Paul, Luke asserts the authority of the traditional processwhile also recognizing that the transmitted tradition had ahistorical inception in recent memory (in this case, the testimony ofeyewitnesses to the life of Jesus). In other words, the appeal is notsimply to traditional teaching perse, as if “old”is intrinsically better than “new”; rather, the story ofJesus, as new as it is in history, becomes a matter of tradition onceit has occurred and been testified to by eyewitnesses.

Traditionand Protestantism

Inbroad terms, each of the three great “religions of the book”(Judaism, Christianity, Islam) recognizes theologically normativestreams of postscriptural (or extrascriptural) tradition in additionto their sacred books. During the Reformation, Protestant theologianssought to introduce a number of corrections to medieval theologyunder the banner of a return to “Scripture alone” (solaScriptura). In response, Catholic theologians asserted the authorityof Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the teaching of thechurch). All living traditions, of course, pragmatically rely onmultiple forms of religious authority. As a result of this history,“tradition” has come to stand for an illegitimate or atleast suspect form of religious authority in some strands ofProtestant thought, wherein a radical biblicism is professed incontrast to a celebration of tradition and traditions.

In the OT, the law commanded respect for those in advancedyears (Lev. 19:32). The fifth commandment (Exod. 20:12) was primarilyaimed at the honoring (and supporting) of elderly parents (as impliedby Mark 7:9–13). The reward for caring for parents is stated inthe motivation clause attached to the commandment: “so that youmay live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you”(being an example of the reward matching the good deed).

Especiallyin OT wisdom literature, old age is viewed as a privilege (Prov.20:29) and a token of divine favor upon the righteous (Prov. 16:31;cf. Gen. 15:15). It was recognized that a person may be “oldbut foolish” (Eccles. 4:13), but more often age and wisdom werelinked. Since wisdom and insight come with experience (Job 12:20;15:9–10; 32:7), leaders and advisers were drawn from the ranksof the elderly. Hence, in both Testaments community and spiritualleaders are called “elders” (Ruth 4:2; Lam. 5:14; Acts14:23; 20:17). Rehoboam’s downfall was due in part to hisignoring the advice of “the elders” who had served hisfather, Solomon (1 Kings 12:6, 8).

Asign of oppressive conditions in the wake of the fall of Jerusalemwas a lack of respect for the old, who, like the very young andwomen, were vulnerable (Lam. 5:12). On the other hand, the futureblessing promised by the prophets included Israel having many elderlypeople (Isa. 65:20; Zech. 8:4).

Thereward of the godly person is to live long enough to see severalgenerations of descendants (Ps. 128:6), examples being Jacob (Gen.50:23) and Job (Job 42:16). The vindication of the Lord’sservant is phrased in traditional symbols of divine favor: “hewill see his offspring and prolong his days” (Isa. 53:10). Thefrailty of age is recognized (e.g., Ps. 71:9, 18; Eccles. 12:2–7),but the experience shared in Ps. 37:25–26 is that God isfaithful in providing and supporting.

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. TheChristian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view ofhumankind’s relationship to God.

TheOrigin of Humankind

Accordingto Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day ofthe creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day(Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of whathappened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals.Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that theyhave a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far morethan highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implicationsfor the care of animals and of the environment generally. The valueof human beings and their special place in the created order is clearin passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Createdin the image of God.Whenit came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over thiscrucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let usmake man in our image” signals that the decision to makehumankind was the most important one that God had made so far.Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Variousopinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is.We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’shumanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek.1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task,the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed ascreation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is betterunderstood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. Theimage shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from allother creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphiclanguage for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male andfemale are in the image of God (“in the image of God he createdthem; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that thedivine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation theimage. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiarquality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moralsense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Everycentury has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However,nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. Thepoint of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with noexact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basisof the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty appliedto the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected everyaspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize thefact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18);nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3;9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed atridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects ofsin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is theimage of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3;2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers inChrist to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Placein the created order.God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “sothey may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purposeclause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition ofdominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humansstewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating ofmeat at first) represents a limitation to the human right ofdominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressiveof his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bringpairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20),showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks(13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measuressaved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wantondestruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut.20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardshipof the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the humanrace populate the whole earth.

AtGen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric,picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man,so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation ofGen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last andhighest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center ofa circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connectionto the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very specialplace is given to human beings in the created order. The two picturesare complementary, not contradictory.

The“man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground”(’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’sname reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,”which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen.3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to“the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact thatthis leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30),so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, themaking of man is described using the language of death. What isdescribed in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom therest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind,though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

TheNature of Humankind

Body,soul, and spirit.Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) ortripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitraryappeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent supportfor both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g.,1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much moreprevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit”can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Deathis marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be amistake to think that human beings are made up of separate componentparts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and notessential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the“body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of thatbeing the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed(Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblicalethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of theresurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor.15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body asinherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of theliberated, disembodied soul.

Thedifferent words used in relation to persons are only intended torefer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified humannature. References to the “soul” may stress individualresponsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins willdie”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expressesemphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with“all my inmost being”—that is, “my wholebeing” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole[cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a personwho expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The“flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity(e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart”is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans aredescribed by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,”“bowels.”

Moralsand responsibility.In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to Godand his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the womanare explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work itand take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate theman’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship aboutthem, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions ofserving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served byoffering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacredprecinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented.The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

Themoral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning.God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “anytree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicatesman’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction.The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the pointabout God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded inthe description of God’s fatherly care for the man and graciousact in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slightand not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make itappear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the veryfirst words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamentalimportance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“youmust not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in thestyle of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).What is placed before the man is a test that gives him theopportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship ofobedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and theopportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moralnature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery bythe prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presuppositionbehind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“youshall not . . .”) are phrased as commands toindividuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, theconcept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’spunishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships.Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the womanas a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25).Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so thatfriendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life(Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the samefact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs andvulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with thepsalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence onGod (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride,against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9,11–17, 22).

The book of Genesis (“Origins”) is well namedbecause it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible andspeaks of the beginnings of the world, humanity, sin, redemption, thepeople of God, covenant, marriage, Sabbath, work, and much more.Genesis is the first chapter of the Pentateuch, a five-part story ofthe origins of the nation of Israel. Genesis is the preamble to thataccount, leading up to the pivotal moment of the exodus and the movetoward the promised land.

Authorship

Asnoted above, Genesis is the opening to the Pentateuch as a whole, sothe question of the authorship of Genesis is connected to thequestion of the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Genesis (andthe entire Pentateuch) is anonymous, though Moses is said to havewritten down certain traditions that were included in the Pentateuch(Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:22).

Latertradition speaks of the “law of Moses” (Josh. 1:7–8)or the “Book of Moses” (2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18;Neh. 13:1), though it is not certain whether these refer to theentire Pentateuch or merely to portions of it that were associatedwith Moses. The NT writers, as well as Jesus himself, speak of thePentateuch in connection with Moses (e.g., Matt. 19:7; 22:24; Mark7:10; 12:26; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:23).

Thequestion of Moses’ role in writing the Pentateuch is morecomplicated, however. For instance, there are indications thatGenesis was updated well after the death of Moses. Traditionally,these passages are called “post-Mosaica,” because theycontain information that could be available only after the death ofMoses. For example, Deut. 34 speaks of Moses’ death and burial.Apparently so much time has elapsed since his death that the writercan say, “to this day no one knows where his grave is”(v. 6). The writer then states, “since then, no prophet hasrisen in Israel like Moses” (v. 10), which also presumes aconsiderable length of time has passed. Other examples include Gen.11:31, which refers to Abraham’s hometown as “Ur of theChaldeans.” Although Ur was a very ancient city, the Chaldeanswere an Aramaic-speaking tribe that only occupied Ur long after thetime of Moses. Similarly, in Gen. 14:14 a city by the name of “Dan”is mentioned, but we know from Judg. 18 that this city only receivedthis name during the period of the judges.

Despitethese considerations, some scholars are still comfortable ascribingsome “essential” authorship role to Moses. (For the mainalternative theory for the authorship and date of the writing ofGenesis, see Documentary Hypothesis; Pentateuch.)

Structureand Outline

Genesismay be outlined in more than one way. One method is to follow thetoledot formulas that serve as an organizing structure for the book.The phrase “these are the toledot of X” (where X is thepersonal name of the character whose sons are the subject of thenarrative that follows) is repeated ten times: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 (cf. 36:9); 37:2 (see also 10:32; 25:13).For instance, Gen. 11:27 begins, “These are the toledot ofTerah” (NIV: “This is the account of Terah’s familyline”), while the account that follows is the story of Terah’sson Abraham. Toledot is best translated as “family history”or “account.” Hence, one can take Genesis as having aprologue (1:1–2:3) followed by ten episodes.

Interms of content and style, the book falls into three main units asfollows:

I.The Primeval History (Gen. 1:1–11:26)

II.The Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43)

III.The Joseph Story (Gen. 37–50)

I.The primeval history (Gen. 1:1–11:26).The book opens with an account of creation given in two parts.Genesis 1:1–2:4a provides a creation account that describes thesix days in which God created the heavens and the earth, followed bya seventh day of rest. Genesis 2:4b–25 then provides a secondaccount of creation, this time with a focus on the creation of Adamand Eve. Genesis 3 then narrates the first sin of humanity, whichintroduces sin and death into the world. Genesis 4–11 providesfour additional stories (the murder of Abel by Cain, theintermarrying of the “sons of God” with the “daughtersof men,” the flood, and the tower of Babel). These stories showa creation gone wrong, God’s move to start over again with Noahand his family, and the persistence of sin thereafter. All of thisleads to the story of the patriarchs, where God’s plan to setthings right takes a decisive turn. These stories are connected bygenealogies that mark the march of time as well as providesignificant theological commentary.

II.The patriarchal narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43).The middle section of the book of Genesis turns its attention to thepatriarchs, so called because they are the fathers of the nation ofIsrael. The style of the book changes at this point, so that ratherthan following the story of all the world and moving at a fast pace,the narrative slows down and focuses on God creating a people to obeyhim and to bring those blessings to the whole world (12:1–3).God now determines to restore the blessing lost at Eden by reachingthe world through the descendants of one individual, Abraham.

Abraham’sfather, Terah, took Abram (as Abraham was then known), Abram’swife Sarai (Sarah), and Terah’s grandson Lot and left Ur tosettle in Harran in northern Mesopotamia. No explanation is givenwhy. While they are settled in Harran, God commands Abraham to leaveUr in Mesopotamia and travel to Canaan. God promises that he willmake him a great nation (implying land and many descendants), andthat he will be blessed and will be a blessing to the nations (Gen.12:1–3). That blessing requires Abraham and Sarah to havechildren, and this sets up much of the drama of his story. OftenAbraham reacts in fear and not faith, but at the end of his story hehas a solid confidence in God’s ability to take care of him andbring all the promises to fulfillment (Gen. 22).

Isaac,not Ishmael (Abraham’s son through Sarah’s maidservantHagar; see Gen. 16), is the conduit of the promises to futuregenerations. Even so, Isaac is not a highly developed character inthe book of Genesis, although his near sacrifice in Gen. 22 iscertainly a matter of great interest. The episode in his life thatreceives the lengthiest attention is the courtship with Rebekah (Gen.24), and there the focus is primarily on her.

Theaccount of Isaac’s life gives way to an account of his sonJacob. Jacob is a complex character. The first episodes of his storyare about how he, the younger, inherits the blessing and becomes theconduit for the promise rather than his older brother, Esau. Jacobbecomes an example of how God uses the foolish things of the world toaccomplish his purposes. That the story of the patriarchs is apreamble to the story of the founding of Israel becomes obvious whenJacob’s name is changed to “Israel” after he fightswith God (Gen. 32:22–32) and his wives give birth to twelvesons, who give their names to the twelve tribes of Israel.

III.The Joseph story (Gen. 37–50).The third section of Genesis focuses on the twelve sons of Jacob, inparticular Joseph. A main theme seems to be God’s providentialpreservation of the family of the promise, in the context of adevastating famine. Joseph himself expresses the theme of thissection at the end of the narrative, after his father dies and hisbrothers now wonder whether he will seek revenge against them. Hereassures them by his statement that although they had meant theiractions to harm him, he knows that God has used these very actionsfor good, for the salvation of the family of God (Gen. 50:19–20).Yes, they had just wanted to get rid of him, but God has used theirjealousy to bring Joseph to Egypt. The wife of his owner had wantedto frame him for rape, but God has used this false accusation inorder to have him thrown into jail, where he meets two of Pharaoh’schief advisers. He had demonstrated to them his ability to interpretdreams, so when the chief cupbearer is restored to a position ofinfluence, he can advise Pharaoh himself to turn to Joseph tointerpret his disturbing dreams. These dreams have allowed Pharaoh,with Joseph’s help, to prepare for the famine. Joseph has risento great prominence in Egypt, so when the famine comes, he is in aposition to help his family, and the promise can continue to the nextgenerations.

Amongother secondary, yet important, themes of the Joseph narrative arethe rising prominence of Judah and the lessening significance ofReuben. Judah at first is pictured as self-serving (Gen. 38), but bythe end of the story he is willing to sacrifice himself for the goodof his father and family (Gen. 44:18–34). This story thusdemonstrates why the descendants of Judah have dominance over thedescendants of the firstborn, Reuben, in later Israelite history.Also, the Joseph story recounts how Israel came to Egypt. This setsup the events of the book of Exodus.

Styleand Genre

Style.Genesis is written in Hebrew prose of a high literary style. Wordsare carefully chosen not only to communicate the message of the bookbut also to attract the reader’s interest and attention.

Genre.Genesis is an account of the origins of the cosmos, humanity, and thepeople of God. Thus, it is proper to refer to the book as a work ofhistory. Of course, there is more than one type of history. Somehistories focus on wars, others on economics or politics. Moreover,Genesis is not history in the modern sense but follows ancientconventions, which do not call for scrupulous accuracy. The centralconcern of Genesis, as with the majority of biblical histories, isthe relationship between God and his people. So, it is appropriate toidentify Genesis as a theological history.

Somereaders misunderstand the nature of the historical information thatthe book provides. For example, Gen. 1–2 communicates to thereader that it is the true God, not a god such as the BabylonianMarduk or the Canaanite Baal, who created the cosmos. The way some ofthe stories are told provides a challenge to rival stories from otherancient religions. One example is how the Bible describes thecreation of Adam from the dust of the ground and the breath of God.This contrasts with the Mesopotamian creation account Enuma Elish, inwhich the god Marduk creates the first humans from the clay of theearth and the blood of a demon god. The biblical flood story also maybe compared to other ancient flood stories, especially the account ofthe flood found in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis clearlyinteracts with such mythological stories to communicate importanttruths about the primeval period.

Message

Therich and complex book of Genesis pre-sents a profound messageconcerning God and his relationship with human beings. This shortarticle cannot do justice to the book’s depth and importance,but it can point to what is perhaps its most important theme: God’sblessing.

Genesis1–2 teaches that God created Adam and Eve and blessed them.They had everything they needed in the garden of Eden. They enjoyed aperfectly harmonious relationship with God and with each other. Theywanted for nothing.

Genesis3 explains how this blessed existence was disrupted. By choosing torebel against God, Adam and Eve ruptured their relationship with Godand, in consequence, with each other as well. They were expelled fromthe garden of Eden.

Evenin the midst of his judgment, however, God began the work ofrestoring the blessing to his human creatures (Gen. 3:15). Thusbegins the relentless work of God to bring restoration to his people.

NewTestament Connections

Genesisis the foundation not just of the Pentateuch, and not just of the OT,but of the entire Bible. The story that begins with creation and fallis followed by the history of redemption, which continues into the NTand which understands Jesus Christ as the one whose death andresurrection serve to restore God’s blessing to his people. Thefull restoration of relationship awaits the consummation of historyand the new Jerusalem, which is described in language telling us thatheaven is a restoration (and more) of the conditions enjoyed by Adamand Eve in the garden of Eden (Rev. 21–22, esp. Rev. 22:2).

Ofthe many allusions to and quotations of Genesis found in the NT, onlya few representative examples may be described here.

Paulpoints to the Abrahamic promise of the seed in Gen. 12:1–3 andproclaims that Jesus is that seed (Gal. 3:15–16). This claim issurprising in light of the OT’s clear understanding that it wasthe multiple descendants of Abraham constituting Israel who fulfilledthis promise (Gen. 15:15). Paul would have known this, but herecognizes that Jesus is the ultimate descendant of Abraham, and thatanyone who belongs to Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is also a participant inthe Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:29).

Asecond example comes from the way in which the author of Hebrewscites the Melchizedek tradition of Gen. 14:17–20. In Genesis,Melchizedek is a mysterious figure who is introduced as thepriest-king of Salem (Jerusalem), whom Abraham acknowledges as afellow worshiper of the true God. In order to make his argument thatJesus is the ultimate priest, the author of Hebrews connects Jesuswith Melchizedek rather than with Aaron and asserts the superiorityof Melchizedek because Abraham (and thus also Levi, Aaron’sancestor) paid respects to this man (Heb. 7:1–10).

Afinal example comes from the Joseph narrative. Earlier, we observedthat the narrative shows how God used the evil actions of people inorder to save many people. In this, the Joseph narrative anticipatesthe death of Christ, who was nailed to the cross by the hands ofwicked people, but God used this very action to accomplish a muchgreater salvation than he did through Joseph (see Acts 2:22–24).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:1–2; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1 Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).

A fuller revelation of God’s will is given in the Mosaic law. God gives commandments in part to heighten the Israelites’ awareness concerning right and wrong, so that with their obedience they might enjoy a covenant relationship within God’s holy presence (e.g., Deut. 28:1–14). This informed social conscience was intended to curb evil behavior (Gal. 3:19). The author of Judges anticipates the need for the law by complaining that “everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25).

However, the biblical narrative also makes room for paradoxical situations and competing values, which complicate moral reasoning (e.g., Gen. 38; Judg. 11:29–40). In the law, God expressly forbids child sacrifice, but he commands Abraham to present his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:1–14). On a rooftop Peter receives a vision in which the Lord commands him to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts 10:1–8). In both cases, God tests faith by commanding the believer to betray personal conscience, to open his heart to a fuller revelation of the divine plan. Even the moral reasoning of God is not always straightforward. God is committed to doing right, but he also weighs decisions with compassion and mercy. Abraham and Moses appeal to God’s character, and they are able to intercede on behalf of sinful people (Gen. 18:22–33; Exod. 32). Jonah even comes to despise this quality of God’s character, which appears to compromise justice (4:1–11).

These tensions anticipate the gospel, which claims that God loves sinners and has provided a means to express mercy toward them without compromising justice (Rom. 3:21–26). Like the Mosaic law, the gospel also provides further revelation into God’s will and therefore a more informed conscience. With citations drawn from throughout the OT, Paul claims that all people suffer from a distorted conscience (Rom. 3:9–20). God has spoken to all people through their conscience, but despite this innate awareness of right and wrong, both Jews, who possess God’s commandments, and non-Jews, who know something about God from nature (creation), have compromised their own ethical stance, so that they have only themselves to blame (1:18–32). This universal inner conflict, emphasized by Jesus and Paul, removes appealing to one’s conscience as a means of justification at the future judgment (Mark 7:1–23; Luke 13:1–5, 22–30). Furthermore, this habitual compromising leads to present self-deception and a skewed perception of the world.

But through repentance and faith in the gospel, returning to God (the Creator), a person’s conscience may be renewed and aligned with the mind and actions of Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1–2; 1 Cor. 2:16). Despite this restoration, the complexity of moral reasoning is not always overcome. Indeed, living in Christ with others from different cultural backgrounds and values often requires deeper reflection. Paul acknowledges that there can be different perceptions by believers, which can lead to different practices. Eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols is neutral or wrong depending upon one’s conscience and that of the observer (1 Cor. 8:1–3). He applies the same perspective to Jewish calendar observance and food laws (Rom. 14:1–23; but see Gal. 4:8–11). But the apostle also presumes that personal conscience can grow in knowledge. Ultimately, believers’ consciences should be informed by relating everything to the lordship of Christ (Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2; 5:11), meditating on the goodness of all creation (Titus 1:10–16), and placing the well-being of others before their own (Phil. 2:1–11).

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to properconduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of worldhe created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. Italso contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both ascreatures of this God and, in some instances, as the uniquebeneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Biblesets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasonsthat justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture werenot moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail;nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God andSavior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for everygood work” (2Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore,is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitivestatement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

TheSources of Moral Knowledge

Scriptureidentifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beingshave the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom.2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrongthat acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. Thefall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and ourconsciences can become “seared” through chronicdisobedience and doctrinal treason (1Tim. 4:2). We do not,therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, theapostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’slaw—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—toeliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No onewill be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who youwere and no hint of what you expected ofme.”

Second,as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this onebeing fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices.Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offersa high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its bestmoments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the churchmust do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (atleast, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular contentand why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvementproject. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer everyethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologiesand cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the firstcentury or any previous age. But the church can be assured that afaithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace ofGod, please him even today, whatever our particular circ*mstances.

TheLogic of Biblical Morality

Themoral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consistingof duties and final objectives. When we obey God’scommandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives increating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality iscomplete and informative compared to systems derived from otherworldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we mustdo from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripturebecause its theological statements are always practically applied andnever presented with merely theoretical interest.

Theobjectives of biblical morality.The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes:the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, twoobjectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipatedside effect of the other.

Toglorify God.The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He ismaximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom,power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite ofthat fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sinsso that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects,God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No oneever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the finalobjective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—toknow him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actionsmust testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging othersto do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what heabhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to livein unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior definewhat it means to glorify God.

Tobe happy in God’s presence.The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy inways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, theChristian system of ethics differs from moral theories that eitherreject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or elsereduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinnersneed our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainlydesires our happiness and often presents himself as the final sourceof it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency followsfrom the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating allthings. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; andbecause he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless ratherthan selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and thevery best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results fromour glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then,biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make humanhappiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable.God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringinghim glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory.The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church whathappiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials ofthis life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1Cor.2:9; Heb. 12:2).

Themeans of biblical morality.Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—howto reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and howto value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, severalmajor themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appearbelow, allowing some overlap between them.

Trustingin God’s promises.Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he haspromised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and notallow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, weproclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him.Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OThistory with an application to the present Christian life. The gospelis a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection ofChrist; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to ouraccount. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandmentsbecause we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it(so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with itscorresponding negative results).

Keepingholiness and impurity separated.God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of theuniverse. All things depend on him for their existence, and he isextreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love.Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,”as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He standsalone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannotentail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this dutyis to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunningall forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancientIsraelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence andgave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa.6:1–5; cf. 1Pet. 1:15–16).

InScripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or theholy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimespedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes oneintrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone tohave other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil tolie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if itexpresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide.But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases,just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by Godfor instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evilas such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’spresence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. Itis not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT andpermitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wearblended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed overin the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules ofthis kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving anobjective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh oneveryday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of Godupon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in anycase, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT aswell, where it informs the question “What must I do to besaved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

ImitatingGod/Christ.The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation ofGod and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility,and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior towardpeople becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, forexample, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this:that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, whoexercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in theseI delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear,as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they willbe called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one whofollows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, sothat we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven”(Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he isperfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash oneanother’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15).They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The newcommandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example,puts on display his character and their own relationship to him(13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,”just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn inPhil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humilitythat surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set beforehim endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in hisglory.

Livingout our unique identity.Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are,because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, andlying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, mostof the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that itoften contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (ordoing X is urgent for you), either (a)because you belong to Godin a special way or (b)because he has done this special thingfor you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT,the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however,the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moralexhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, arecognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

Thelinkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior,is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text movesfrom prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out ofEgypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shallhave no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut.5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OTas motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X,for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, forI am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In somecases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in,“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord yourGod has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth tobe his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again,“You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cutyourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you area people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on theface of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasuredpossession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers tothe people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “WhenIsrael was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.But the more they were called, the more they went away from me”(Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’sexperience of God’s particular love.

Inthe NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appearsoften, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Pauland Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin mustresist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the HolySpirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him andshun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become anunleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of theold yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1Cor. 5).The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one newhumanity (1Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by theSpirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tellshis readers to love one another because they have been “bornagain” of “imperishable seed” (1Pet.1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royalpriesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, theymust proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1Pet.2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and weare the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In allthese cases, the target audience has a special relationship to Godthat imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that theyreflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals thathe has set before them.

Livingin unity with one another.The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all otherrelationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve wouldlive in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brotherAbel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, Godscatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9;1Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’speople live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OTteaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands betweenYahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite andanother. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinishedbusiness of the OT story.

TheNT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task)of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live inunity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed,people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind ofpeople, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,”so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle tothe Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that hisexhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, ratherthan the individual. Christians must display the social virtues oflove and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both ofwhich separate believer from believer and each from the head of thechurch, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case forChristian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps,in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts adivisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2Corinthiansis arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “messageof the cross” (1Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church intocults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us awayfrom one another and into competition for influence, wealth, andpublic honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force iscentripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leadingeach person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christmight be built up in him.

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

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

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

Jesuscriticizes the scribes and Pharisees because “they do notpractice what they preach” (Matt. 23:3; cf. Mark 7:6). Whatthey practice is for display (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). Jesus describes theattempt of his opponents to catch him with crafty questions ashypocrisy (Matt. 22:18; Mark 12:15). Jesus is not necessarily callingall Pharisees hypocrites, and certainly not all Jews, but only thosewho are impeding his ministry. Paul, who was raised a Pharisee (Acts23:6; Phil. 3:5), viewed himself not as a hypocrite but as ignorant(1Tim. 1:13). Jesus criticizes Nicodemus not for hypocrisy butfor ignorance about the deeper meaning of Scripture (John 3:1–15).The rabbis, who are descendants of the Pharisees, relate a traditionof concern about hypocrisy within the ranks of the group (e.g.,b.Sotah22b).

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

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.

Introduction

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

Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.

TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.

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

Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

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

NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.

Jesus’Life

Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.

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

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

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

Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.

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

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

TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.

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

Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.

AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.

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

TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).

Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

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

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

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

PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

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

Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).

Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.

Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

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

Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

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

TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.

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

Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

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

Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

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

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

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

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

Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

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

Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’Purpose and Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

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

Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.

In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.

Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.

In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic andreligious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day,Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually theterm began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense,and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a wholeand religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as theinalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3;John 2:6).

TheGospels

Inthe Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely inthe phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus(Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born asthe king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the lawof Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized theimportance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27),and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the lawwithout carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not onlybecause they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also becausethey viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing theirreligious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).

TheJews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g.,Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes(the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not acceptJesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions ordenying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generallyaccepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal andother benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upperclass is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the“Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew andLuke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewishcities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating thatresistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among theJews.

Jesusresponded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation(Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servantof a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of thisGentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects ofthe kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” becauseof unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham inthe kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief ofthe Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first.Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that theyshould not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of theSamaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel”(Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).

Theterm “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synopticsoutside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-onetimes in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as atechnical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and hisfollowers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on theirrejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in uniquerelationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “oneand only”(monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what thetemple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent.John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much morewidespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting theJews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty toJewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57;9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).

Actsand the Pauline Letters

Inthe book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences)is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who opposePaul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12,14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).

Inhis letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnicand religious sense without connoting that they have theologicalantagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with theGentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirsis the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants,the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises”(Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identitythrough their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews fromfalse Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption.Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; andcircumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by thewritten code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from falseJews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel(9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is theresult of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OTprophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “childrenof Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3(Gal. 3:7–8).

Paul’spresentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statementthat the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’schildren but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44).In 1John the children of God are defined in terms of loverather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book ofRevelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, butare a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passagesshow that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather thanthrough the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaiclaw (Rom. 3:20–28).

Thesepolemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make theNT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes isneither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of theJews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who hascome in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.

During the time of Jesus and in the couple of centuriesprior, Judaism was not a monolithic entity but was comprised ofdifferent groups with varying religious concerns and politicalinterests. This multifaceted nature of Judaism has caused scholars toquestion whether it would be better to speak of Judaisms rather thanJudaism. Was Judaism cut from a whole cloth, or was it a box offabric scraps? Perhaps it is best to speak of Judaism as a singleentity, but one comprised of various factions with diverse beliefsand interests. This conclusion is justified because the diversesentiments and interests were responses to the same religious andpolitical issues, such as Torah, the temple, and foreign occupiers.

Fiveof the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, theSadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The firstthree seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of theHasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, andthe other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by theRomans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.

Pharisees

Accordingto Josephus.The best source of information on the Pharisees, apart from theGospels themselves, is the Jewish historian Josephus, who discussesthe beliefs of various Jewish factions. In consideration of his Romanaudience, he depicts these groups as Jewish philosophical schools. Inhis Antiquities, Josephus indicates a rough outline of the beliefs ofthe Pharisees and their political position in relation to theSadducees and the general populace.

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

ThePharisees and the Sadducees had a difficult relationship, due notonly to different religious beliefs but also to conflicting politicalaspirations. Josephus suggests that Jewish leaders gave patronage toone group or the other, or suppressed one group or the other,sometimes violently. In regard to the general populace, the Phariseeshad a much better relationship with them than did the Sadducees, tothe point that when Sadducees were magistrates, they had to ruleaccording to the beliefs of the Pharisees or else the people wouldnot listen to them.

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

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

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

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

ThePharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time totime, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetictoward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee inregard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in aconfrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, someearly Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

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

Sadducees

TheSadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood.“Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” adescendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Somemembers of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok”as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, ifnot direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of theQumran community.

Alongwith the Pharisees, the Sadducees were a religious-political groupthat sought the support of the ruling powers. It is in the context ofthe patron-retainer relationship that we first hear of the Sadducees.Josephus relates how the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus switched frombeing the patron of the Pharisees to that of the Sadducees. When thePharisee Eliezer suggested that Hyrcanus step down from the highpriesthood due to his uncertain lineage, Hyrcanus became very angryand wanted Eliezer to be executed. The rest of the Phariseessuggested that he merely be bound and whipped, since they had atradition of passing light sentences. A Sadducee suggested that theypassed such a light sentence because they agreed with Eliezer thatHyrcanus was unsuitable to be high priest. Hyrcanus then cast hissupport behind the Sadducees and abolished the laws that thePharisees had given to the populace.

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

Josephusgoes on to write that Sadducees were as contentious in their disputeswith fellow Sadducees as with people outside the group, and they didnot hold their elders in esteem. They had influence over the elite,but no say with the populace at large.

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

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

Essenes

TheEssenes are the third “philosophical school” mentioned byJosephus. Most scholars consider the Qumran sectarians who producedthe DSS to be Essenes. This has created a number of circulararguments, since the DSS are then used to confirm the nature ofEssene beliefs. That being said, there is good evidence that theQumran sectarians were at least in part Essene. The Essenes are notmentioned in the NT or in rabbinic literature, but they do appear inthe writings of Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder.

Josephusdelineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows. (1)Theyascribed every happening to God. (2)They believed in theimmortality of the soul.

Josephuswrites at great length concerning the Essenes’ way of life.They lived an ascetic lifestyle, avoided pleasure, and devotedthemselves to prayer. They shared all things in common and lived inharmony with one another. Some Essenes avoided marriage, whereasothers regarded marriage and procreation as too central to human lifeto avoid. Certain Essenes could predict the future and interpretdreams. Concerning sacrifices, Josephus mentions that although theysent offerings to the temple, they had their own, superiorsacrifices.

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

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

Zealots

Scholarstend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to threedifferent groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii, andZealots. The three groups have different political ideologies andemerged at different times in the first century. They can all bedescribed as revolutionaries.

Thebrigands were motivated not by religious or political ideology but bysurvival. Displaced from the traditional economic structure ofPalestine—the agricultural village—by the Romans, thebrigands stole from Jew and Roman alike. They hated the Romansbecause the Romans had driven them into poverty through taxation andtransformation of the economy from subsistence-based agriculture tocash crops that could be sold more readily. (Money could be shippedto Rome more easily than crops.)

Theother two groups, the Sicarii and the Zealots, fought the Romans andJewish collaborators for political and religious reasons. Theyemerged at different times during the first century, and they shouldnot be lumped together, for their methodologies and goals weresomewhat different.

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

TheSicarii were a group of assassins who emerged in the AD 40s–50s.They specialized in mixing into Jerusalem crowds and murdering Jewswho were friendly with the Romans, mainly the wealthy. The highpriest Jonathan was one of their victims. At the start of the firstRoman war, they commanded Jewish troops but were driven out by fellowJews. They spent the rest of the war at Masada, conductinginconsequential exploits. They killed themselves in AD 73–74rather than be captured by the Romans. Josephus writes that theleader of the Sicarii at the beginning of the first Roman war wasMenahem, the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee. It has beenspeculated that Judas Iscariot’s surname may be derived fromSicarii, but the etymology is uncertain.

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

Thefirst Roman war erupted when the Roman procurator Florus looted thetemple. When nothing was done concerning this, the lower priests, thecaptain of the temple guard, Eleazar, and other revolutionary leadersdecided to terminate the temple sacrifice made on the emperor’sbehalf. This essentially started the Roman war and gave rise to theZealots.

Herodians

TheHerodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reportedto have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after hehealed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are alsodescribed, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesusconcerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16;Mark 12:13).

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

In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic andreligious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day,Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually theterm began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense,and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a wholeand religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as theinalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3;John 2:6).

TheGospels

Inthe Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely inthe phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus(Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born asthe king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the lawof Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized theimportance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27),and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the lawwithout carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not onlybecause they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also becausethey viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing theirreligious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).

TheJews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g.,Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes(the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not acceptJesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions ordenying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generallyaccepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal andother benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upperclass is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the“Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew andLuke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewishcities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating thatresistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among theJews.

Jesusresponded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation(Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servantof a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of thisGentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects ofthe kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” becauseof unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham inthe kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief ofthe Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first.Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that theyshould not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of theSamaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel”(Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).

Theterm “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synopticsoutside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-onetimes in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as atechnical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and hisfollowers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on theirrejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in uniquerelationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “oneand only”(monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what thetemple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent.John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much morewidespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting theJews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty toJewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57;9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).

Actsand the Pauline Letters

Inthe book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences)is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who opposePaul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12,14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).

Inhis letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnicand religious sense without connoting that they have theologicalantagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with theGentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirsis the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants,the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises”(Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identitythrough their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews fromfalse Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption.Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; andcircumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by thewritten code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from falseJews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel(9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is theresult of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OTprophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “childrenof Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3(Gal. 3:7–8).

Paul’spresentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statementthat the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’schildren but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44).In 1John the children of God are defined in terms of loverather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book ofRevelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, butare a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passagesshow that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather thanthrough the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaiclaw (Rom. 3:20–28).

Thesepolemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make theNT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes isneither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of theJews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who hascome in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.

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

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

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

John,who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claimsthat God is light (1John 1:5). The predicate appropriates theintrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s heartsback to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truthand signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of theworld (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’sholiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the placeof fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7). See also Lightof the World.

The Mishnah is a compilation of traditional Jewish oral law.It is both the culmination of prerabbinic Jewish tradition and thefounding document of postbiblical rabbinic Judaism. It is written ina style of Hebrew that developed from biblical Hebrew, known asMishnaic Hebrew. Rabbinic tradition attributes the formation of theMishnah to Rabbi Judah the Patriarch around AD 200. He compiled itfrom previous oral tradition as well as tradition contemporary withhim.

Mishnahis a Hebrew word, and it has been interpreted in various ways. Itcould mean “second,” “teaching,” or“instruction.” Hence, it could stress the mode ofinstruction by which the students learned Mishnah, or it could be areference to the fact that Mishnah is second to the Torah, thePentateuch.

OralTorah.The Mishnah is the nucleus of Oral Torah. Traditional rabbinicJudaism has a dual Torah. The first part of the dual Torah is thePentateuch, and the second is rabbinic literature, especially theMishnah and the Talmud, but also to a certain extent the Tosefta andrabbinic midrash (see also Midrash). Traditionally, rabbinic Judaismteaches that God gave two Torahs to Moses at Sinai: the written Torah(the Pentateuch) and the Oral Torah. Eventually, the Oral Torah waswritten down. Thus, the Mishnah and other early rabbinic literaturecame into existence. The Oral Torah can be viewed as parallel to thePentateuch or as the authoritative interpretation of the Pentateuch.Whatever the case, it is as authoritative as the Pentateuch. We cansee such an attitude toward the received tradition, “thetradition of the elders,” in the Gospels, such as when thePharisees ask Jesus why his disciples, eating with unwashed hands, donot follow the tradition of the elders (Mark 7:1–5).

Structureand historical context. TheMishnah is divided into six “orders,” which in turn aredivided into a number of subdivisions called “tractates,”generally related in theme to the order to which they belong (seetable 3). The longest of the orders is Teharot, comprising one-fourthof the Mishnah. This highlights the goal of the Mishnah, which is topromulgate a way of life by which all of Israel is pure. The othertractates spell out how every area of life is to be regulated witheverything in its proper place. In the Mishnah, the holiness thatcharacterized the temple and its service is applied to every aspectof the life of Israel. Heaven and earth are seen as brought intoharmony through the carrying out of life by the laws of the Mishnah.

Table3. Orders of the Mishnah

I.Zera’im(Seeds) – Laws dealing with agriculture

II.Mo’ed(Appointed days) – Laws dealing with festivals according to thelunar calendar

III.Nashim(Women) – Laws dealing with marriage contracts, women’svows, suspected adulteresses, divorce, engagement, and so forth

IV.Neziqin(Damages) – Laws covering everyday social interaction, such astrade, real estate, and so forth, as well as penalties for damages byanimals, other people, and so forth. It also discusses lawcourts andthe penalties given for various offenses.

V.Qodashim(Holy things) – Laws dealing with sacrifices of various types,as well as the slaughter and consumption of animals not intended forsacrifice. Other topics involve the firstborn (of both animals andpeople), temple furnishings, the offerings of poor people, and soforth.

VI.Teharot(Purities) – Laws covering purities and impurities of all sorts

TheMishnah is a document that depicts an ahistorical ideal. It depictsIsraelite life as it should be lived in relation to God. The Mishnahhas no introduction that situates it in history. It simply begins bystating the judgments of various rabbis on a vast array of topics,and it abruptly ends when it is done. This serves to give the Mishnaha timeless quality.

Althoughthe Mishnah depicts itself as timeless, it is most certainly aproduct of its times, about which one must have a general grasp inorder to understand the necessity of the Mishnah for rabbinicJudaism. The Mishnah was necessitated by the aftermath of the BarKokhba Revolt, which took place in the second quarter of the secondcentury AD. As punishment for the revolt, Emperor Hadrian expelledthe Jews from Jerusalem and made it into a Gentile city. After thisdevastating blow, any realistic chance of rebuilding the temple wasgone. This was a crisis of the highest enormity. How could Israel bea holy people before God with no temple and no hope of building one?The Mishnah asserts powerfully that Israel, through a totallysanctified existence in every sphere of life, can still be that holypeople before God.

TheMishnah and the Bible.The Mishnah rarely quotes the Bible, and the material that containsbiblical quotations is generally considered to be later additions.Although some of the sections of the Mishnah seem to be biblicalparaphrase, this does not mean that the Mishnah is a body of biblicalinterpretation. In fact, much of its material seems to be independentof the Bible, and other material contradicts it.

TheMishnah is a compilation that includes much earlier traditionalteaching, and as such, it contains material attributed to thePharisees, with which the Mishnah is congenial. It would be a mistaketo see rabbinic Judaism that began with the Mishnah as a continuationof the Pharisaic Judaism depicted in the NT. There is a decisivebreak between Pharisaic Judaism and later rabbinic Judaism, eitherwith the destruction of the temple in AD 70 or with the expulsion ofthe Jews from Judah after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, with the latterbeing more likely.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.

Introduction

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

Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.

TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.

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

Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

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

NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.

Jesus’Life

Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.

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

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

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

Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.

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

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

TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.

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

Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.

AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.

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

TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).

Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

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

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

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

PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

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

Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).

Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.

Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

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

Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

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

TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.

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

Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

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

Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

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

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

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

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

Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

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

Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’Purpose and Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

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

Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.

In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.

Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding theway in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desiresobedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa.29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos.6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing someof the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophetresponded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed isbetter than the fat of rams” (1Sam. 15:22).

Inthe OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar[e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4])God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed aslistening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV,NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’svoice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaiccovenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the lawsset forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, Godwould bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, hewould curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history ofIsrael sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen peopleand the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2Kings18:9–12; 2Chron. 36:11–21), even though Godrepeatedly warned the people through his prophets that thisdestruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness(e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

Inthe NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience toJesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructionsfor his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey”(Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt.28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him wouldlead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1John5:3; 2John 6), and the disciples’obedience, in turn, would cause them to remainin Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obeytheir parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō)their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20,22).

TheNT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Fatheras a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis forsalvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the lawwho will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all havesinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin forus, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”(2Cor. 5:21).

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.

The term “elder” is used variously in Scriptureto describe an older man, a person of authority, or an appointedleader in a church office.

OldTestament.The first instance of “elder” in the OT is in Exod. 3:16,where Moses calls the elders of Israel to gather together. These men,seventy in number, most likely were the heads of different familiesin Israel (Num. 11:16, 24; Deut. 19:12; 21:19). The term “elder”likely indicates both their function as leaders and their age. Theywere gifted leaders, but they were also wiser because of theirexperiences in life.

Eldersexercised civic and judicial authority in Israel’s cities andtowns. They made judgments of various kinds, such as disciplining arebellious son (Deut. 21:18–21), clearing the reputation of ayoung virgin girl who may have been slandered (22:13–19), andurging obedience to the law and commands of God (27:1).

NewTestament.In the Gospels “the elders” are named together with thechief priests as ruling authorities in Israel. They appear to havebeen the nonpriestly members of the Sanhedrin and, like thePharisees, scribes, and chief priests, are in frequent conflict withJesus (e.g., Matt. 16:21; 26:3; 28:12; Mark 7:3; 8:31; Luke 7:3;9:22). In the book of Acts they come into conflict with the apostlesin Jerusalem (Acts 4:23) and are involved in the sentencing andexecution of the first martyr, Stephen (6:12; 7:54–60).

Followingthe model of Judaism, leaders in the first-century church are oftenreferred to as “elders” (presbyteroi [e.g., Acts 11:30;14:23]). In the Pastoral Epistles elders and “overseers”(or “bishops” [episkopoi]) appear to denote the sameleadership office. Paul explicitly focuses on the elders’character when he lists qualifications in 1Tim. 3:1–7;Titus 1:5–9. Elders must be above reproach in character andbehavior. This includes being the husband of one wife, temperate,self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given todrunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover ofmoney. Each elder must manage his own family well and requireobedience and respect from his children. He must not be a recentconvert, and he must have a good reputation with outsiders. If theelder does not manage his own family well, how can he take care ofGod’s church (1Tim. 3:5)? God’s calling to lead thechurch requires people of godly character.

Eldersnot only teach and lead (1Tim. 3:2; 5:17), but they are alsocalled to shepherd the flock. The apostle Peter provides insight intohow an elder should lead, exhorting them to shepherd not undercompulsion but willingly and by example (1Pet. 5:1–5).They should follow the example of the chief shepherd, Jesus (5:4).This leadership must be done in humility, since God is opposed to theproud (5:5).

Thelast mention of elders in the NT is in the glimpse of heaven given inthe book of Revelation. In Rev. 19:4 twenty-four elders are said toserve in a priestly role as part of the worship before God. Theidentity of these elders is uncertain. They may be angelic beings orrepresentatives of the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelveapostles.

The term “elder” is used variously in Scriptureto describe an older man, a person of authority, or an appointedleader in a church office.

OldTestament.The first instance of “elder” in the OT is in Exod. 3:16,where Moses calls the elders of Israel to gather together. These men,seventy in number, most likely were the heads of different familiesin Israel (Num. 11:16, 24; Deut. 19:12; 21:19). The term “elder”likely indicates both their function as leaders and their age. Theywere gifted leaders, but they were also wiser because of theirexperiences in life.

Eldersexercised civic and judicial authority in Israel’s cities andtowns. They made judgments of various kinds, such as disciplining arebellious son (Deut. 21:18–21), clearing the reputation of ayoung virgin girl who may have been slandered (22:13–19), andurging obedience to the law and commands of God (27:1).

NewTestament.In the Gospels “the elders” are named together with thechief priests as ruling authorities in Israel. They appear to havebeen the nonpriestly members of the Sanhedrin and, like thePharisees, scribes, and chief priests, are in frequent conflict withJesus (e.g., Matt. 16:21; 26:3; 28:12; Mark 7:3; 8:31; Luke 7:3;9:22). In the book of Acts they come into conflict with the apostlesin Jerusalem (Acts 4:23) and are involved in the sentencing andexecution of the first martyr, Stephen (6:12; 7:54–60).

Followingthe model of Judaism, leaders in the first-century church are oftenreferred to as “elders” (presbyteroi [e.g., Acts 11:30;14:23]). In the Pastoral Epistles elders and “overseers”(or “bishops” [episkopoi]) appear to denote the sameleadership office. Paul explicitly focuses on the elders’character when he lists qualifications in 1Tim. 3:1–7;Titus 1:5–9. Elders must be above reproach in character andbehavior. This includes being the husband of one wife, temperate,self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given todrunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover ofmoney. Each elder must manage his own family well and requireobedience and respect from his children. He must not be a recentconvert, and he must have a good reputation with outsiders. If theelder does not manage his own family well, how can he take care ofGod’s church (1Tim. 3:5)? God’s calling to lead thechurch requires people of godly character.

Eldersnot only teach and lead (1Tim. 3:2; 5:17), but they are alsocalled to shepherd the flock. The apostle Peter provides insight intohow an elder should lead, exhorting them to shepherd not undercompulsion but willingly and by example (1Pet. 5:1–5).They should follow the example of the chief shepherd, Jesus (5:4).This leadership must be done in humility, since God is opposed to theproud (5:5).

Thelast mention of elders in the NT is in the glimpse of heaven given inthe book of Revelation. In Rev. 19:4 twenty-four elders are said toserve in a priestly role as part of the worship before God. Theidentity of these elders is uncertain. They may be angelic beings orrepresentatives of the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelveapostles.

Human pride removes God from the center of life and exaltsself, attributing to self the honor due God. Thus, pride is an act ofrebellion against God. Several lists of vices include pride (Prov.6:16–19; Mark 7:20–22; Rom. 1:28–31; 2Tim.3:2–4 KJV). Both James and Peter, in admonishing Christians toapproach God and one another in humility, quote this proverb: “Godopposes the proud but shows favor to the humble” (James 4:6;1Pet. 5:5; cf. Prov. 3:34).

Pridedestroys both individuals and nations. It destroyed individuals suchas the kings Uzziah (2Chron. 26:16), Hezekiah (2Chron.32:25–26), and Herod (Acts 12:21–23). Pride also destroysnations. It brought down Israel (Jer. 13:17; Hos. 7:10; Amos 6:1–3,8). Isaiah gives a classic description of Israel’s pride (Isa.2:6–22). God destroyed Assyria because of its pride (Isa.10:12–19). Pride was the downfall of other nations as well,such as Babylon (Jer. 50:29–32), Egypt (Ezek. 31:10–12;32:12), and Moab (Jer. 48:29). God abhors pride (Prov. 16:5; cf.Ezek. 16:50) and responds by striking it down (Prov. 15:25; 16:18;Job 22:29).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.