11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. 2 For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.
It Is Really Something New by Dr. Frank Bateman Stanger
2 Corinthians 5:11--6:2, Acts 17:16-34
Sermon
by Leonard Mann
The six of us ministers during this special series have been given a very demanding assignment. There is nothing more exacting than to try to tell the meaning of something. Certainly it is not easy to verbalize accurately a meaning.
I remember shortly before I left the last local church which I served as pastor that one of the young adults, a very attractive, intelligent, spiritually sensitive lady said to me, "Before you leave our church, will you tell us again what it means to live a sanctified life?" She wanted a meaning. In that same church there was a Jewish man married to one of the faithful members of the church. He called me to his home one evening and said, "Will you tell me what you mean when you preach that Jesus is the Son of God?" He wanted a meaning.
On one occasion I was invited to one of our denominational headquarters and asked to spend an entire day talking to a group of curriculum writers about the distinguishing features of Evangelical Christianity. They wanted meanings. A denomination leader came into my office a couple of years ago, pulled a chair up close to my desk, and remarked, "I have only ten minutes. Knowing of your interest in the life of Christian Perfection, I am here to have you tell me your concept of it." He wanted a meaning.
Recently I was in a church in Waxahachie, Texas, which is pastored by one of the graduates of our Seminary. During a devotional period he spoke on the subject of Christian maturity. He prefaced his remarks by telling us how he arrived at the content of that message. He said, "For years I have been telling couples in pre-marital counseling that a successful marriage demands a developing maturity. One day as I sat alone at my desk I asked myself, ‘What does it really mean to mature? Just what is maturity?’ This message is the result of my searching for true meaning in this area."
It is a difficult assignment to try to give the meaning of something. Yet we have been asked during this series to try to help you understand the meaning of this "new doctrine" of Jesus Christ. "What is this new doctrine ... and what do these things mean?"
Actually it is impossible for any of us preachers to know what the others have said or will say. How I wish I had the privilege of hearing the other five. For my part I have decided, and I trust that it is an inspired leading, to approach the subject tonight contextually. I want to consider the question contained in the text against the background of the actual context in which it was first asked. That is the reason why I requested that the entire story be read as a Scripture lesson tonight. When we look at something in its context we ask, "What did it mean originally?" then we proceed to apply the meaning to today’s life.
When we study this "Athens episode" in the life of the Apostle Paul, we find some significant insights. For one thing, human scheduling can be divinely seized and utilized as an extraordinary opportunity for spiritual ministry. Paul was in Athens; he was in Athens alone. He thought his only reason for being in Athens was to wait for Silas and Timothy to arrive. He did exactly what you and I do when we are in a city alone and have some time on our hands. He became a sightseer.
It is interesting what you can learn about a city when you walk along its streets, look at its people, and begin to catch something of its spirit. I was in Montgomery, Alabama, during the bitter days of the racial crisis. Everything was quiet. The few people on the streets hurried from one store to another trying to accomplish their errands as quickly as possible and with as few contacts as possible. It was quite evident what was the tense spirit of that city during those days.
Last summer my wife and I walked again the streets of beautiful Berne, Switzerland. To us Berne is as lovely a city as the Old World offers. We walked there early in the morning. The spirit and character of the people were everywhere evident. They were cleaning the sidewalks, watering the flowers, putting out the fruit stands, hurrying to work. We soon realized that here were an industrious people, a people who love beauty and culture, a people who took pride in themselves and in their city.
As Paul walked around the city of Athens, he was overwhelmed by its excessive idolatry. That was the thing which impressed him most. In fact, the Greek words which are used in the story say that he was provoked, he was exasperated. He could hardly contain himself as he discovered idolatry everywhere. Athens was a great university city, a city that had passed its golden age nearly 400 years before, and now a city of many gods. Paul’s mind and soul were vexed and he decided to do exactly what Christians always do when they get stirred. Do you know why more professing Christians do not do more? They have never yet been really stirred about spiritual matters.
Paul was deeply stirred and he tried to do something constructive in response. He knew immediately that the only antidote to the idolatry of Athens was to proclaim Jesus Christ and him resurrected. He began in the synagogue, disputing with the Jews. He talked with God-fearing Gentiles. He talked with those persons he met in the market place. Then he came face to face with the philosophers. And here is the second insight that comes out of our context tonight. This is the first record we have of philosophy and the Christian gospel coming into head-on conflict with each other.
He talked with the Epicureans. They had some interesting doctrines. They believed that everything happens by chance, that death is the end of it all, that pleasure is the chief end of man, and that if there are any gods they are far removed from the world. He talked also with the Stoics, who were quite different from the Epicureans in their philosophy and theology. They believed that God is fiery spirit. They held that everything is God and within every man is a part of the fiery spirit which we call God. They believed that everything is fated, that God wills all that happens. They also believed that at regular intervals the world disintegrates in some kind of conflagration and then starts all over again.
To these Epicureans and Stoics, Paul began to preach Jesus and his Resurrection. To me this is the only authentic preaching of the gospel of Christ. You cannot preach the gospel of Jesus Christ unless you preach his Resurrection. These philosophers were appalled. In fact, the names they called Paul in response were amazing. I noted them in the different translations. They called him a babbler, a charlatan, a chatterbox, a dilettante, a co*cksparrow, a picker of scraps, a ragpicker, a beggarly babbler, an amateur talker, a fellow with only a few scraps of learning, a dreamer, a propagandist for foreign gods.
But there was something about Paul, something about his witness, and something about the way he was talking that caused them to want to hear his discussions other than in private. They also wanted him to participate in public discussions. The Scriptures say they "arrested" him, "took him by the sleeve," so he could not get away from them. They took him to the Areopagus, which is the Greek name for Mars Hill, meaning both the hill and the court that met there in the city auditorium. It was a select court - perhaps only thirty judges who were in charge of the public morals of the city. What a setting for the sermon which followed. In the greatest university town in the world, before the most select group of judges in the world, Paul was asked to state his faith. It was there he answered their question: "What is this new doctrine ... and what do these things mean?"
This leads us to a consideration of a final introductory insight growing out of the context. God can use even routine questions to give eternal answers. The Scriptures say that the people of Athens spent all of their time asking questions and talking about anything that was new. That was their pastime, their routine, what they mainly did. But there is nothing routine with God. God took these routine questions from a group of people who just liked to babble about novelties and inspired his servant Paul in response to declare eternal truth. This is the truth we are talking about tonight. We are considering Paul’s answer to the question: "What is this new doctrine ... and what do these things mean?"
Listening to what Paul said, and trying to interpret the meaning of the Christian faith contextually, let me say, first of all, that in a very real sense the new builds upon the old, for the Christian faith addresses itself to the deepest nature of a person. Even the philosophers admitted that this is a religious nature. So we discover at the outset that the Christian faith is a relevant faith speaking to the deepest nature of created persons.
The Athenians were actually confirming the truth which was expressed some centuries later by St. Augustine when he prayed: "Thou has made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless ‘til they rest in Thee." Paul said to the Athenians: "I perceive you are very religious, you are very devout, you are uncommonly scrupulous in everything that concerns religion." He even suggested that perhaps they were trying to seek the Lord if perchance they might find him.
The very admissions of philosophy about the essential religious nature of man are fingerposts that point to something higher than itself. Here we come face to face with the grand truth that the Kingdom of God which Jesus announced, which he inaugurated and which he embodies, is actually the only true realism. Jesus is the Way, the way that life is intended to go. He is the Truth, that which alone satisfies the mind made in the image of God. He is the Life, the very essence of existence. I think often of what E. Stanley Jones wrote: "There is only one kind of predestination I believe in; you and I are predestined to be Christian." The "new doctrine" builds upon the old truth - the deepest nature of people manifests its affinity for both spirituality and immortality.
The second major insight into the meaning of the "new doctrine" of Christ is that the Christian faith transcends human philosophy because of its Christocentricity, its Christ-centeredness. So Paul declares that the Christian faith is not only a relevant faith but it is also a supernatural faith. He was talking to philosophers. Philosophy is content with ideas, ideas about deity. Philosophy can even accept the doctrine of creation. Paul reminded them: "Your poets have said we are the offspring of deity."
But, as Paul points out, to worship merely at the shrine of a vague creatorship is to worship ignorantly. No mere nature worshiper ever truly worships God in spirit and in truth. In contrast to philosophy which limits itself to ideas, Paul declares that the Christian faith is centered in a person - Jesus Christ. Read carefully his sermon on Mars Hill. He began with the creation but he did not stop there. He moved through creation to incarnation. He announced Jesus Christ as a person, a new person, a new humanity, revealing the true nature of God. He announced an incarnation which was climaxed in a resurrection from the dead.
The Christian faith transcends human philosophy. Philosophy has only ideas. The Christian faith has at its center a person - a real person. "The Word became a person," says the Apostle John, "and dwelt in our own being. The Word was full of grace and truth." That real person went all the way to a cross, all the way to the depths of death and hell; but God has raised him from out among the dead. This is the transcendence of our faith; it is a supernatural faith. The God-man walks in our midst.
In Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill there now follows the heart of the newness of the Gospel. It is really something new, for Paul declares that the Christian faith is demandingly but graciously ethical. The Christian faith is not only relevant, appealing to our deepest natures; it is not only supernatural, being manifested in a person whom God has sent; the Christian faith is also transforming. The contrast between philosophy and the Christian faith is startling and glaring in its ethical implications. The Athenians worshiped ignorantly. Consequently, there were few resulting moral and ethical effects. But the knowledge of God is no mere intellectual discipline. It involves moral and religious responsibilities.
Paul in his sermon to the Athenians points out at least three areas where we see the transforming aspects of the Christian faith.
First, it is manifested in the spiritual nature of true worship. God is not limited to man-made temples. God is not truly worshiped through things that can be made with human hands. God is a spirit. They who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The second area that Paul points out may be spoken of as the vertical dimensions of faith and worship. Persons must be rightly related to God. In his sermon Paul clearly announces God’s call to repentance. "The time has come," he declared, "for men everywhere to repent; to turn from idols; to turn from sin; to turn to the living God." More than that, he reminds them that God has appointed a day of judgment. Here are the ethical implications of the faith, the call to repentance now, and a future day of judgment when God will judge the world through this man whom he has already raised from the dead.
The third area in which is seen the transforming power of the Christian faith is probably the essential part of the message tonight. The Christian gospel is not only demandingly ethical, it is also graciously ethical. We discover God’s gracious offer of personal transformation in and through Jesus Christ.
The Athenians wanted to hear a new thing. Paul both declared it and illustrated it in his own being: "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation." That is the new thing. That is the thing which is really new about the doctrine he was proclaiming. "Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." The very man who stood there preaching was a living witness to being a new creation in Jesus Christ.
Think of what Paul had discovered through his acceptance of the Christian gospel. He had discovered a new God, a God of grace as well as of law. He had discovered a new Savior, so that he was no longer a mere creature but now a son of God through Christ. Paul had experienced a new birth, had received a new heart and become a new creature. He was a new man. He had discovered a new life, new freedom, a new motivation, new conduct, a new sense of mastery. He had discovered a new purpose and activity in life. God had called him and given him new concerns. He manifested a new compassion. He lived in the sense and power of a new Presence. He had a new relationship to everyone in the new humanity in and through the Spirit of Christ. He had a new hope. "Nothing can separate me," he said, "from the love of God." "I have a tabernacle of God, eternal in the heavens." "I press on that I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead."
All of this is the meaning of the newness of life that Paul had experienced through Jesus Christ. F.W.H. Myers summarizes the Christocentricity of it all when in his poem entitled "St. Paul" he has Paul say -
Oh, could I tell, ye surely would believe it!
Oh, could I only say what I have seen!
How should I tell or how can ye receive it,
How, till He bringeth you where I have been?
Yes, through life, death, through sorrow and through sinning
He shall suffice me, for He hath sufficed!
Christ is the end, for Christ was the beginning!
Christ the beginning, for the end is Christ.
Here is the Good News of the Gospel - what happened to Paul has happened a hundred-thousand-fold and more down across the centuries. Whenever a person has received Jesus Christ he has become a new creation through the Spirit. The Christian hosts of the centuries cry out tonight proclaiming newness of life through Jesus Christ.
I have recently returned from a tour with our Singing Seminarians, during which time I came to know the singers very well. I heard nearly every one of them give a Christian testimony at least once. I was amazed at the way these young men had been transformed by Jesus Christ and had become new creations through Christ. I think of the secular agnostic plant executive who one day met Jesus Christ and is now studying for the ministry. Here is the young man who thought that participating in some social movement was the answer to the meaning of life. He adopted peace slogans and followed "love groups" all over the nation. But it was not until he found Jesus Christ that he found true life. Here is the boy who was converted from a life of gross
sexuality which had plagued him during adolescence and young manhood. But Christ had made him a new creature. Time after time a Singing Seminarian would say to a church congregation: "I was only a nominal Christian in a local church, just going through the religious motions, but one day Jesus Christ touched me and changed me and I became a new creature alive in him." All gave witness that the old has passed away and that the new has come.
Not only is new life in Christ happening to individuals today but new life in Christ is also happening corporately. Entire families are coming alive because of Christ. Entire churches and congregations throughout this nation are coming alive because Christ has been invited into the very heart of the life of the local church. Spiritual renewal is at work. This is the new thing.
The Christian faith is demandingly but graciously ethical and it is possible for people to be transformed by the experience of this newness of life in Christ. The best news that I know tonight is that if you are dead in trespasses and sins, if you are insensitive to spiritual values because of your self-centeredness and your secularity, if you are only going through the religious motions of it all, Jesus Christ can make you new if you will let him. You can walk out of this church a new creation, with old things passed away and all things becoming new.
What a faith Paul declared to the Athenians - a relevant faith that addressed itself to the deepest nature of people; a supernatural faith which presented the man Jesus Christ resurrected from out among the dead; a transforming faith which makes it possible for Christ to live and reign in a person’s heart and life.
There is one other note in Paul’s message as he expounded to the Athenians the meaning of this "new doctrine." The Christian faith is clearly and confidently eschatological. The term "eschatological" means regard for last things, concern about the future. It is amazing how much interest there is in the world today about the future and last things. Just yesterday when I was working on this sermon, I chanced to see a paper that had been picked up on the University of Kentucky campus. Almost the entire paper was on the subject of death and what is going to happen at the end of things. Read the secular magazines, look at the increasing interest in astrology, look at the rapidly growing sects and cults. All reveal a tremendous interest in what is ahead, in the future, in last things.
The Christian faith is clearly and confidently assertive in its doctrine of last things. Thus we also have an eternal faith. The Christian faith affirms that the sovereignty of God is always active. In his sermon Paul declared such truths as "God who made the world," "God who is the Lord of heaven and earth," "God who has made of one blood all nations," "God who determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation." The sovereignty of God is always at work. This is my Father’s world. God is the ruler. God is not merely above history; God is also in the midst of history working out his redemptive purposes.
Paul affirmed that the climax of history will be manifest in the victory of righteousness. "God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in justice." God is not going to judge the world in a tyrannical or arbitrary manner. Nor is he going to judge the world remotely. God’s purposes will be fulfilled at that day when he will judge the world in justice. Christoph Blumhardt, influential German pastor who ministered a century ago and whose eschatology was refreshingly confident, wrote: "Jesus is already victor. He so manifests Himself in human life. This is the sign of His ultimate victory over all of the forces and powers of darkness."
"What is this new doctrine ... and what do these things mean?" The Christian faith is a relevant faith. The Christian faith is a supernatural faith. The Christian faith is a transforming faith. The Christian faith is an eternal faith.
Such is the nature of the Christian faith that every confrontation of it is personally decisive. Tonight each of us is making some kind of personal response to the Christian faith. As we leave this service, each of us will have made some kind of personal decision in relation to Jesus Christ. So strategic is Jesus Christ that even no answer becomes an answer of "no."
Look at the varied responses to Paul’s sermon in Athens. They mocked Paul, they laughed at him, they ridiculed him. They called him stupid; they said, "How can anybody believe things like this?" Look at the multitudes in our world today who are reacting in this same way - mocking, ridiculing, rejecting. They have no place for this kind of spiritual faith in their gross materialism and pervasive secularity.
Others in Athens procrastinated. They said, "Paul, maybe another time you can talk some more about it and we will listen to you then." They put Jesus off. Across the centuries there have always been those who have joined that endless line of shame who have just put him off. The rich young ruler did not know what to do with his money so he put Christ off. Felix said, "I think there will be a time that is more convenient for me to deal with Christ." There have been those in our families and in our churches and in our communities whom we have known who have just put him off and off and have never really done anything about him. Some of you here tonight may be putting him off.
Jesus, Thou art standing outside the fast-closed door,
In lowly patience waiting to pass the threshold o’er; ...
O shame, thrice shame upon us, to keep Him standing there.
Some mocked, some procrastinated. Thank God, some believed as a result of Paul’s sermon. Did you notice who were singled out as the believers? Two very different types of persons are mentioned. Dionysius, who belonged to the intellectual aristocracy, believed. An upright man, an intellectual man, a learned man, an influential man, he received Jesus Christ into the center of his life. The other believer named is Damaris, a woman. William Barclay in his commentary suggests that she must have been "a woman of the street," for only this type of woman would have been out in public at the time of day that Paul was preaching. Supposing this to be the case, isn’t it marvelous to see the appeal of Christ to persons at both ends of the spectrum? How illuminating in this regard are words which Jesus himself spoke: "And I if I be lifted up will draw all men unto myself."
What is your response to Jesus Christ tonight? Upon your response hangs both your life and destiny. Will you let Jesus Christ be your Savior and Master and Friend?
CSS Publishing Co., Inc., Meaning Of These Things, The, by Leonard Mann
Because Paul is expecting to stand before the judgment seat of Christ (5:10), he is motivated to persuade people of the truth of the gospel (5:11). He explains his motives in ministry, not to promote himself but to enable the loyal Corinthians to answer Paul’s opponents in the church (5:12). Although he sometimes uses unintelligible speech in private worship (i.e., “out of our mind”), he speaks plainly to the Corinthians…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. 2 For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.
Paul’s mission proceeds with these expectations, and as they are known to God, so now they have been made known to God’s people at Corinth. In making his hopes and fears known, however, Paul is not “trying to commend” himself, but only sharing with the Corinthians in a way that will allow them to take the measure of his apostleship in truth apart from appearances. For all that Paul has done has been in response to the compulsion of Christ’s love, demonstrated in Christ’s willingness to die for all and include all in his death (5:14; cf. Rom. 6:5–11; 1 Cor. 15:22; Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:3). No longer then can those who belong to Christ live for themselves; they must live instead at the direction of “him who died for them and was raised again” (5:15).
Furthermore, if Christ has died for all, then a purely human perspective can no longer form the basis for judgments about the worth of his actions or the value in his plan for any man or woman. Anyone who is in Christ (i.e., who belongs to him through incorporation into his body) has already become a part of a new creation (i.e., a part of the transformation of human existence that has begun in Christ and will culminate in the re-creation of heaven and earth [Rom. 8:19–23; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Pet. 3:10, 13; Rev. 21:1]). They have passed beyond the point of living solely as a part of the old creation (though a part of that which is “old” has been left both within and without, in our bodies and our world) and have begun to live as a part of the new created order.
Moreover, the source of such new creation is God, whose work, as in the creation accounts of the Old Testament, forms the decisive beginning for it. For “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (5:19; the order of words within this Greek clause is ambiguous and has produced a variety of translations). The achievement of the work, however, depended on Christ. For the new creation was allowed to proceed without counting the “sins” of the old only because “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (5:19, 21). And now the extension of the work rests on those to whom have been entrusted the ministry and the message of reconciliation. For God has chosen to extend his work in Christ through “Christ’s ambassadors,” through them making his appeal to be reconciled to God to those who do not yet participate in the new creation (5:20).
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
5:11–15 In this section, Paul draws a conclusion (note the “therefore,” Since, then [oun], in v. 11) to the previous discussion. He rejects the opponents’ physical criterion for assessing the legitimacy of his apostolic office and seeks instead to establish valid, internal criteria.
5:11 The conclusion begins in verse 11, the expression fear the Lord tying in with what Paul has said about the judgment seat of Christ in verse 10. Since he is well aware that all people must give an account of their actions in the final judgment, Paul carries out his apostolic ministry in reverence before the “Lord,” which means here either God or Christ, since both are seated together on the merkabah and perform activities interchangeably (see on v. 10). His previous encounters with the divine merkabah (cf. 2 Cor. 2:14; 12:1–4) have probably contributed to this fear and reverence of the Lord. Already in the biblical account of Isaiah’s commission, the prophet displayed great fear at the sight of the the Lord seated on a high and exalted throne and attended by seraphs (Isa. 6:1–5). In subsequent Jewish tradition, the standard reaction of the merkabah mystic when confronted with the throne-chariot is awe and terror of the divine (cf. Ezek. 1:28; 1 En. 71:11; 4 Ezra 10:29–30, 34; Apoc. Ab. 16:1–4; Hekhalot Rabbati [Schäfer, 92]).
Since Paul knows the fear of the Lord, he tries to persuade men. While it is unclear exactly what Paul tries to persuade men of, the verb seems to be used in Acts as a technical term for the apostolic proclamation (cf. Acts 18:4 [“Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks”]; 19:8; 28:23). Indeed, it is Paul’s responsibility to “win” both Jews and Gentiles with the message of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:19–22). In that case, Paul would be saying that his knowledge of the fear of the Lord causes him to preach the gospel and to try to persuade people. The thought is, again, similar to that in 1 Corinthians 9: The Apostle Paul, who has “seen” the Lord Jesus as the very basis of his apostleship (v. 1; cf. 15:8–9), has a divine “obligation” upon him to preach the gospel, “and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel” (v. 16). Obviously, the fear of the Lord is upon the apostle as he proclaims the message in accordance with his “commission” (v. 17), and the subsequent reference to an ultimate “reward” for his preaching (vv. 17–18) fits well with the reference in our passage to the judgment seat of Christ, before which each one will receive what is due (2 Cor. 5:10). All this goes to say that Paul is driven by pure and honorable motives.
Paul substantiates his assertion that the fear of the Lord and the coming judgment motivate him to preach the gospel, by appealing to two witnesses—God and the Corinthians themselves. On the one hand, Paul appeals to God as his witness: What we are is plain to God (lit., “We are made known to God”). In 1 Corinthians 13:12, Paul claims to be fully known by God (cf. Gal. 4:9). His motives and actions are completely laid bare to the one who will be his judge at the final tribunal. As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 4:4–5, “It is the Lord who judges me. […] He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.” This is not the first time in the letter that Paul has appealed to God as his witness (cf. 2 Cor. 1:18, 23).
Paul’s second witness is the Corinthians themselves. As thoroughly as God already knows the apostle, Paul hopes that it is also plain to your conscience (lit., “it is also made known to your conscience”). Just as Paul has already appealed to his own clear conscience in order to testify that he has conducted himself in his relations to the Corinthians with the holiness and sincerity that are from God (1:12), so also here Paul appeals to the Corinthians’ conscience in order to testify to his integrity (cf. 4:2). Thus, if Paul claims that he is motivated to preach the gospel by the fear of the Lord and the coming judgment, he appeals to their conscience to verify that fact. The Corinthians themselves provide some of the strongest, tangible evidence for the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship (cf. 3:1–6). Paul realizes, however, that the Corinthians will not understand him fully until the day of the Lord (1:14).
5:12 Having asserted the motivation for fulfilling his apostolic commission and offering supporting testimony as to its veracity, Paul clarifies a possible misunderstanding over his self-commendation. At first, this may seem like a semantic game. The word again refers back to Paul’s statement in 4:2, that “by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” Prior to that, Paul had denied that he was commending himself again (3:1). Paul seems to have a delicate tightrope to walk between defense and self-commendation. As the apostle bitterly contests in 12:11, “I ought to have been commended by you.…” The reason for this is simple: The Corinthians themselves are supposed to be Paul’s letter of recommendation for all to read (2 Cor. 3:2). Therefore, if he needed first to commend himself to the Corinthians before they could commend him, Paul would be placed in an awkward, if not compromising, situation. Instead, Paul appeals to what they already know in their consciences about him as the basis for commending him.
In this way, Paul wants to give them an opportunity to take pride (lit., “boast”) in him. In 1:14, Paul has already stated his hope that in the day of the Lord Jesus the Corinthians can boast of Paul just as he will boast of them. Paul seeks to avoid every appearance of boasting in himself and in his own accomplishments (cf. 1 Cor. 9:16; 2 Cor. 12:5), although he would gladly accept external authentication in the form of boasts from the Corinthians (but cf. 1 Cor. 3:21). When his apostolic authority is questioned, however, Paul does, paradoxically, engage in self-boasting, although he acknowledges it to be foolish (cf. 2 Cor. 10:8; 11:16–17, 21; 12:1, 11).
The purpose (so that, hina) for which Paul wants to give the Corinthians an opportunity for boasting about him is given in verse 12b. The expression used here (echein pros tina) has puzzled scholars because it is usually assumed that an object for the verb “have” must be inferred from context. The NIV evidently understands the object to be answer and thus shortens the whole expression (“so that you may have an answer to those who …”) to so that you can answer those who.… Instead of answer, other suggestions for the missing object include “occasion,” “boast,” “some means of reply,” or simply “something,” each of which assumes that Paul wants to supply the Corinthians with arguments against the attacks of those who would oppose his apostolic office. More likely, however, Paul is using an abbreviated Greek idiom that means “to be hostile or ill-disposed toward someone.” This is made clear by the adverbs that are normally included in the construction (e.g., allotriōs, apechthōs, dysmenōs, echthrōs, kakoēthōs, kakōs, chalepōs). Thus, when Ptolemy, filled with wrath (3 Macc. 5:1), had ordered the execution of the Jews, “he returned to his feasting, gathering together those of his friends and of the army who were most hostile to the Jews” (v. 3). The idiom occurs frequently in the writings of Josephus (cf. Ant. 1.166; 7.186; 8.117; 13.35, 85, 195, 288; 14.8, 164, 404; 15.81; 16.267; 17.290; 20.162; Life 375, 384, 392; War 7.56). By using this expression, Paul seems to be urging the Corinthians to side with him against his opponents: “in order that you may be hostile toward those who boast in the face and not in the heart.”
Paul describes his opponents as those who take pride in what is seen (lit., “in the face” [NRSV: “outward appearance”]) rather than in what is in the heart. This is the first reference to Paul’s opponents in Corinth since 2:17 and 3:1. The allusion is to 1 Samuel 16:7, where the Lord says to Samuel: “Look neither at his face nor at the outward appearance of his stature, for I have rejected him with contempt. For God sees not as a man looks: Man looks at the face, but God looks at the heart” (cf. Ps.-Philo 59:2; b. Sanh. 106b; Gal. 2:6). As we have discussed, Paul is open to the charge of being a fraud, because his glorious claims (cf. 4:6) cannot be verified by any physical change in his body like the one that Moses experienced in his face (cf. 3:7–18; p. 102). Indeed, the process of heavenly ascent itself could have been expected to transform Paul’s face (cf. Ascen. Isa. 7:25: “the glory of my face was being transformed as I went up from heaven to heaven”). Paul’s opponents evidently allege that Paul is a fraud because he does not need to wear a veil in public (cf. 3:13), his bodily presence face-to-face is so weak (10:1, 10), and he has a thorn in the flesh (12:7). In response to these allegations, Paul characterizes the opponents’ position as “boasting in the face,” and his allusion to 1 Samuel 16:7 makes it clear that the opponents’ criterion for assessing the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship is not God’s. As Paul has already stated to the Corinthians, he will stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10), which will expose the inner motives of his heart (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4–5). Meanwhile, any appeal to bodily evidence of Paul’s veracity is strictly illegitimate. By failing to realize the flow of thought in context—from the discussion of Moses’ face in 3:7–4:6, through the discussion of the transformation of Paul’s mortal body in 4:7–5:10, through to the present passage—many commentators misunderstand the reference to “face” in 5:12 as figurative, i.e., the opponents’ boasting in their own outward achievements (cf. 11:22–23).
The opponents’ criterion for boasting (i.e., the face) is juxtaposed to Paul’s own, that is, the heart. In 2 Corinthians, the apostle repeatedly emphasizes the condition of his heart in relation to the Corinthians (cf. 2:4; 3:2; 6:11; 7:3). Paul puts great stock in this aspect, for the heart is the place of the working of the Holy Spirit of the new covenant, of which he has been appointed a mediator (cf. 3:6). Hence, the rejection of the external criterion of assessing apostolic legitimacy in favor of the internal is not a way of retreating to the inaccessible, but rather essential to everything Paul stands for. Paul rejects the opponents’ claims based on their “deeds” (cf. 11:15) and supports his own legitimacy based on his own behavior (4:2; 5:9–10; 6:4–10; 10:12–18; 11:23–33; 12:5, 9–10). It is interesting to note that according to later Hekhalot literature, the merkabah mystic is able to perceive every word and deed of humans, even in the innermost sanctum (Schäfer, 83, 86).
5:13 Paul goes on to give the reason the Corinthians have an occasion for boasting about him. The use of the term translated here to be out of one’s mind (existanai) is equivocal: It can refer either to the ecstatic experience of the enraptured mystic (cf. Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.24; On Drunkenness 146–147) or to insanity (cf. Mark 3:21). Hence, picking up a theme related to his previous discussion of being at home in the body or with the Lord, Paul touches here on another accusation with regard to his encounter with the merkabah: In what sense was it an “out-of-mind” experience? Paul’s opponents apparently allege that he is crazy, whereas Paul claims to have had a genuine revelatory experience. The crucial question is how the apostle can authenticate his ekstasis as revelatory experience in the face of opponents who think he is a fraud.
The opponents’ perspective on Paul’s mental infirmity is rooted in Jewish tradition. The charge reflected here may be directly related to Paul’s claim to have encountered the merkabah (the so-called Fool’s Speech in 11:1–12:13 comes back to this charge and to his merkabah experience). Interestingly enough, in 1 Corinthians 14, one of the key passages that informs us that Paul is an ecstatic mystic who speaks in the “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 14:18; cf. 13:1), Paul expresses the concern that speakers of these heavenly languages would appear to outsiders to be out of their minds (14:23). According to Hekhalot Rabbati, however, hearing the voices of the angels who sing before the throne of glory causes one immediately to go mad (Schäfer, 104).
In reconstructing the opponents’ attitude toward Paul’s mental state, we may also compare the use of the Hebrew mešuggaʿ (“mad, crazy”) in the critique of OT prophets by their enemies (cf. 2 Kgs. 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7), a term which has been understood by some as an indication of ecstasy in OT prophecy (see the reference to “babbling” in 2 Kgs. 9:11; see also Jer. 29:26; Josephus, Ant. 10.114). Although he never calls himself a prophet, Paul has many similarities to an OT prophet (cf. K. O. Sandnes). According to Philo, prophetic “ecstasy” (ekstasis) is not the same as that associated with “madness” (mania); rather, it is a relaxation of the senses and a retreat of the reason that causes the senses to “depart” (existanai) from those who perceive (Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.24; cf. 1 En. 71:11: At the sight of the “Ancient of Time” [cf. Dan. 7:13], Enoch fell on his face, his whole body became relaxed, and his spirit was transformed).
On the one hand, Paul is arguing here that if his opponents are right that he is out of his senses, then it is for the sake of God (theō is a dative of advantage here). Paul equivocates on the term existanai in order to imply that his alleged madness is actually the ecstatic revelatory experience of a man of God. Furthermore, as the apostle has already stated, he is motivated by the fear of the Lord (v. 11). On the other hand, Paul states that if he is in his right mind (as he himself would maintain), then it is for you (hymin is another dative of advantage). Paul has repeatedly insisted that his apostolic ministry redounds to the benefit of the Corinthians (cf. 1:6–7; 4:12).
5:14–15 The reason that Paul’s complete existence is a life for the sake of God and others is given in terms of a sorites in verses 14–15, which puts a capstone on everything Paul has been saying in this section on his apostolic existence in a mortal body. Paul has been urging the Corinthians to abandon the opponents’ physical criteria for assessing the legitimacy of his apostleship and to focus instead on the process of renewal that is taking place within him and within his heart. In keeping with this argument, Paul reveals here once again what kind of convictions and compulsions motivate him at the core of his being: not only “the fear of the Lord” (v. 11), but also Christ’s love. While, at first glance, we may wonder whether Paul means the love which he has for Christ or the love which Christ has shown to him, the next line makes it clear that Paul intends the latter. The love of Christ is expressed in the fact that Christ died for all (cf. Gal. 2:19–20: “who loved me and gave himself for me”). Paul is motivated by devotion to the crucified Christ who died “on behalf of all [people].” At this point at the latest, we see that some of the arguments that Paul uses in defense of his apostleship actually apply more generally to others as well.
But what does it mean that Christ died for all and therefore all died? At first, the inference that Paul makes here does not appear compelling, for it is not immediately obvious how the death of a single individual effects the death of others, let alone why that might be a desirable event and a motivation for Paul’s apostolic ministry. According to Paul, all people are sinners who are estranged from God, sold into slavery under the power of sin, and condemned to death (Rom. 1–3; 7:14). In order to rectify this situation, the OT law of atonement prescribes that the sinner must identify himself/herself with a sacrificial victim (Lev. 1:4), so that when the victim is sacrificed, the sinner in effect dies with it. Sprinkling the blood of the victim on the altar (Lev. 1:5) signifies giving the life to God, for according to Leviticus 17:11, “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” This is not so much a matter of placating an angry God as it is providing restoration both of the life of the condemned sinner and of his/her relationship with God. In other words, Jesus became sin, or rather a sin-offering for humanity, so that people could be justified before God through his blood (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:25; 5:9) and reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:18).
The purpose (that, hina) of Christ’s universal atonement is that those who live might have a new life dedicated to Christ and to obedience to him. In other words, Christ died “for all” in order that they might live for him. Those who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead, they might walk in newness of life (cf. Rom. 6:2–11). As Paul explains it, believers are not free to live as they wish, but are under the authority of a new master and are controlled by the power of the indwelling Spirit. This is Paul’s motivation for apostolic ministry, and the criterion by which he would like to be evaluated.
5:11–6:2 In 5:16–6:2 Paul proceeds to the third step in the defense of the legitimacy of his apostleship, which climaxes in a direct appeal to the Corinthians not to receive God’s grace in vain (6:1). In essence, Paul urges the Corinthians to quit seeing him as a suffering and dying apostolic imposter and to acknowledge him instead as the divinely appointed representative of Jesus Christ on earth and the minister of reconciliation that he really is. Otherwise, they risk forfeiting the eschatological salvation of the Lord. For the Corinthians to defect from Paul and to reject his apostolic ministry is to abandon Christ and the Spirit, and thus the very love of God.
5:16 The new section begins in verse 16 with a conclusion (So, h?ste) that draws together what Paul has been saying in the previous section and makes a transition to a new subject. In the previous section (4:7–5:15) Paul has been arguing that the opponents’ physical criterion for assessing the legitimacy of his apostleship is distorted. The apostle’s suffering and dying body and his lack of a glorified face like that of Moses cannot be used to show that Paul is a fraud. Therefore, Paul now applies his own principle to himself in a kind of reverse psychology: we regard no one from a worldly point of view. A more literal translation shows what Paul is really trying to say: “we know no one according to the flesh.” Implied in this is that Paul’s opponents do “know” him “according to the flesh.” In context, the opposite of knowing according to flesh would be to know “according to the heart,” as Paul has been urging the Corinthians (cf. v. 12). Ultimately, of course, only the Lord really knows the hearts of people and rewards each person according to his or her works (cf. vv. 10, 11; Rom. 8:27; 1 Kgs. 8:39; Prov. 24:12).
In contrast to Paul’s present practice of refusing to know anyone according to the flesh, he admits that in the past he did so with regard to Christ: Though we once regarded [lit., “knew”] Christ in this way [lit., “according to the flesh”], we do so no longer. The argument here is as subtle as it is powerful. At one time, Paul erroneously used the same physical criterion to evaluate Christ as the apostle’s opponents presently use on him! Paul is saying that he once knew Christ according to the flesh as a crucified messianic pretender. The word “Christ” (christos) here denotes Messiah (cf. M. Hengel); this is particularly clear from the reference to “him who knew no sin” in verse 21. By all appearances, Jesus of Nazareth was merely one of several such messianic pretenders who had come on the scene in recent years and who had received their just deserts at the hands of the Romans (cf. C. A. Evans). From a Jewish perspective based on Deuteronomy 21:22–23, Paul the Pharisee saw the crucified messianic pretender as accursed by God, for according to Deuteronomy 21:23, which Paul later cites in Galatians 3:13, “anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse” (cf. M. Hengel). As Paul’s life ebbs from his mortal body in a process of daily dying, the opponents recognize Paul in a similar fleshly way as an apostolic pretender (cf. 2 Cor. 6:8, which makes it clear that Paul was considered a planos, i.e., a false prophet and religious seducer of the people, just as Jesus had been [cf. A. Strobel]). The previous section (2 Cor. 4:7–5:15) has been at pains to show that, despite appearances to the contrary in Paul’s body, the evidence points in another direction precisely because of the resurrection of Christ.
What made the difference for Paul? Why does he no longer know Christ according to the flesh? The emphasis of the text at this point is on the manner of knowing rather than on the object per se. Paul’s radical change of mind about Jesus came about as the result of his encounter with the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus. At that time, the one whom Paul thought was crucified and “accursed” in the body confronted him in the splendor of divine glory (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Cor. 9:1). Exalted to the right hand of God to share God’s throne on the merkabah, Christ revealed himself to Paul as the Son of God, as Messiah of Israel, and as redeemer of all who believe. What had previously been a stumbling block—a crucified Messiah! (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23)—became the center of Paul’s new existence (15:3–11). The new “knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord” had radical consequences for Paul’s entire life, requiring him to abandon old values and to reorient himself on new ones (Phil. 3:7–11; cf. Gal. 1:13–16). Now Paul wants “to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil. 3:10–11; cf. 1 Cor. 2:2). That fairly well summarizes what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:15 about his mortal body.
Through subsequent reflection on the Scriptures, Paul recognizes the error of his ways as a Pharisee: He saw Christ according to the flesh in the same way as the “we” of Isaiah 53:3–4 viewed the Suffering Servant of the Lord: “He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces, he was despised, and we held him of no account.” Now, however, as a result of encountering the resurrected Lord, Paul recognizes Christ as the Suffering Servant who bears the iniquities of the many (2 Cor. 5:15; cf. Isa. 53:4–5, 11–12). Similarly, the suffering apostle of Jesus Christ—the one who shares in the sufferings of Christ (1:5; 4:10)—is despised and rejected by opponents (cf. E. Baasland). Paul changed his mind and his method of assessment; his opponents, however, are still operating on the old method of observing the mortal body (so also M. Thrall). Their position is contrary to Scripture (see the aforementioned allusion to 1 Sam. 16:7 in 2 Cor. 5:12).
5:17 Paul draws a general conclusion (Therefore, h?ste) from the fact that, since his encounter with the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus, he no longer knows Christ according to the flesh as a crucified messianic pretender. The contrast in verse 16 between Paul’s old and new ways of perceiving Christ prompts a further contrast between old and new that makes Paul’s experience prototypical of all believers. Being in Christ (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:14; 5:18; Gal. 1:22; 2:17; 3:26; 5:6; 1 Cor. 1:4; 15:22; 2 Cor. 3:14) or “in the Lord” (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12; Gal. 5:10; 1 Cor. 7:22, 39; 11:11; 15:58; 2 Cor. 2:12) results from having been baptized into Christ by faith (Gal. 3:27), so that one now forms part of the church, which is the “body of Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Rom. 12:4–8; Col. 1:18, 24; 2:16–19; 3:15; Eph. 1:23; 4:4–16; 5:23). Believers are personally united with Christ, who is a corporate figure like Adam and indeed his typological counterpart (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22, 45).
Being in Christ (“the last Adam”) causes one to be a new creation. In the “postexilic” time of distress, Nehemiah’s prayer (Neh. 9:6–37) takes creation as the ground for hope (v. 6). If the God who elected Abraham and led Israel out of Egypt is really the creator God, then he can and will lead Israel out of the present situation of degradation and distress (cf. R. Rendtorff). In Isaiah, the expectation of Israel’s restoration as a second exodus redemption included the idea that God would make “new heavens” and a “new earth” (Isa. 65:17–19; 66:22–23; cf. 1 En. 45:4–5; 72:1), and that there would be a return to the ideal conditions in Eden (Isa. 51:3; cf. Jub. 4:26 [no sin]). Within this new creation, “all flesh” would come to Zion in order to worship God (Isa. 66:22–23). Obviously, we are dealing here with much more than individual transformation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18 [“the world”]). Paul calls believers a “new creation” (cf. also Gal. 6:15) because they, with the rest of creation (cf. Rom. 8:19–22), undergo a physical and spiritual transformation (see on 4:7–5:15), which is an act of creation on a personal level (see the allusion to Gen. 1:3–4 in 2 Cor. 4:6).
Paul’s radical distinction between the old (ta archaia) and the new (kaina) is also drawn from Isaiah. This in the context of Israel’s future redemption from exile, which recalls the exodus from Egypt, Isaiah 43:18–19 reads: “Do not remember the former things, and do not consider the old things (ta archaia). Look (idou), I am doing new things (kaina) which will now spring up, and you will know them. And I will make a road in the desert and rivers in the dry land.” This OT text plays a major role in the NT (cf. O. Betz). Paul identifies these “new things” with the redemptive work of Jesus Christ in the world. In the process, he recalls the “old (palaia) covenant” and the “new (kain?) covenant” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3:6, 14, which is also understood in the traditional context of the second exodus redemption. The condemnation of the law that sent Israel into exile under the “old covenant” (and expelled Adam from Eden) is being reversed.
5:18–21 In this section Paul goes on to elaborate on the new creation and the new things in terms of the divine reconciliation and his own official, apostolic function in relation to this reconciliation.
5:18 The new world order in Christ is from God in the sense that God took the initiative in providing it in accordance with his divine plan. Apocalyptic literature of the OT and early Judaism consistently emphasizes that in the last days God himself will intervene in world affairs to establish his kingdom. Ultimately, joint effort plays no part in this process; God is at work from start to finish.
God is described by means of two, parallel participial clauses that emphasize his reconciliatory deed, on the one hand, and the consequent reconciliatory word, on the other. About the deed, the first clause makes clear that participation in the new creation presupposes that God reconciled Paul to himself through the substitutionary death of Christ. Here again the apostle portrays his experience as prototypical of that of all believers (cf. 5:1, 16–17), although it is not impossible that the first person plural actually includes all believers at this point. As we have seen, Paul’s use of the first person plural can shift quite suddenly in any given context (cf. 1:3–11). But in verse 20, which draws an inference from the previous context, the first plural clearly refers to the apostle. Furthermore, the second participial clause almost certainly refers to Paul’s own ministry of reconciliation.
The verb reconciled is used in the sense of making peace between enemies (cf. Rom. 5:10–11; 1 Cor. 7:11). In Hellenistic-Jewish texts, it is hoped and prayed that God will turn away his wrath and reconcile himself either with individual people or with Israel as a whole (cf. 2 Macc. 1:4; 7:33; 8:29; Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.166; Josephus, Ant. 3.315). Ephesians 1:14–18 gives us an encompassing picture of the reconciliation that Christ, in his body, has accomplished between former enemies—between Jews and Gentiles, on the one hand, and between God and humanity, on the other—creating “one new man” and making “peace.” Likewise, according to Isaiah 53:5, the Suffering Servant of the Lord was expected to be “wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that brought us peace, and by his bruises we are healed” (O. Hofius). The “peace” of Isaiah 53:5 is the same as the “reconciliation” of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 5:18–21. The atoning, substitutionary death of Christ for sinners effects “peace with God” and “reconciliation” (Rom. 5:1–10). Hence, Paul begins his letters with the formulaic greeting that refers to this peace: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:2).
The second participial clause, about the reconciliatory word, shows the apostle’s involvement in proclaiming God’s reconciliatory deed: Paul has already used the word ministry (diakonia) and “minister” (diakonos) in the previous context to refer to his own ministry of the new covenant in contradistinction to Moses’ “ministry” of the old covenant (cf. 3:6, 7, 8, 9; 4:1). Here, too, he implies a typological comparison to Moses. Both Philo (On the Life of Moses 2.166; Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.49) and Josephus (Ant. 3.315) portray Moses as “reconciler” (katallakt?s, diallakt?s), in the sense that he intervened before God on behalf of the people after the golden calf incident (Exod. 32:11–13; cf. Exod. Rab. 43:2; Deut. Rab. 3:15). Paul sees himself as being commissioned with a similar ministry of reconciliation and mediation, although, as we shall see, Paul’s ministry is greater since it encompasses the whole world and comes solely from divine initiative. Paul’s role is primarily one of preaching the gospel and of persuading people (cf. 2 Cor. 5:11). On the way to Damascus, God himself revealed his Son to Paul and gave Paul the commission to preach the gospel of the Son of God among the nations (Gal. 1:16). When Paul states that God gave him the ministry of reconciliation, this is another way of saying that he has an apostolic office directly from God.
5:19 This verse elaborates on God’s reconciliatory deed and Paul’s commission to a ministry of reconciliation proclaiming the reconciliatory word in verse 18. Whereas verse 18 speaks very specifically about Paul as the object of God’s reconciliatory deed, verse 19 expands the scope to include the world. The idea that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ puts the matter on a grand scale.
It possible that in 2 Corinthians 5:19 Paul is using imperial imagery of the Pax Romana (cf. K. Wengst) in order to communicate his point about God’s reconciling the world (sinful humanity or the nations) to himself in Christ. As we have seen in 2:14, Paul uses another imperial image—the triumphant emperor—in order to suggest that he has encountered the throne-chariot of God, who is always leading him in triumphal procession “in Christ” in every place. Furthermore, Paul may have the same motive for using Roman imperial imagery in the present context, for by using the reconciliation of the world under the Pax Romana as a metaphorical vehicle, Paul can bring up the image of Christ enthroned next to God on the merkabah in accordance with Psalm 110:1, the most important christological text in the NT (cf. M. Hengel). Interestingly enough, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John (6.57 295) already interprets 2 Corinthians 5:19 in light of Psalm 110:1, because the Psalm text expresses reconciliation in terms of the subjugation of enemies: “The Lord says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’” The image is one of world domination (cf. Ps. 2:8; 72:8; Sib. Or. 3:741–762, 785–795), which is quite consistent with Paul’s previous reference to the “judgment seat of Christ” before which all people must appear (2 Cor. 5:10). We may note that, in Jewish tradition, the enthronement of Messiah is associated with the aforementioned “new creation” (cf. 1 En. 45:3–5; 2 Bar. 73:1–74:4). If our interpretation is correct, then verse 19 goes beyond verse 18 by stating that the reconciliation of sinners to God effected by Christ’s atoning death also entails a reconciliation of the world to the lordship of God and Christ, who sit enthroned together on the merkabah.
Two parallel clauses follow, linked by And (kai) to the main clause. The first relates to the world and the second to Paul’s commission. The first participial clause states that, in reconciling the world to himself, God is not counting men’s sins against them. By this, Paul is merely reaffirming that under the new regime those who were formerly enemies through sinfulness (cf. Rom. 5:8, 10) are now brought into fellowship and allegiance. Their former sins are not counted against them; they are absolved. The expression is traditional, as Psalm 32 (31):2; Joseph and Asenath 11:10; and Testament of Zebulun 9:7 show.
The second participial clause, about the “word” (message, ton logon), links Paul’s apostolic commission with God’s reconciliation of the world. Unfortunately, the NIV translation obscures the parallelism between the two circ*mstantial participles by making the second one an independent clause. The point, however, is that God’s reconciling the world manifested itself both in not counting humanity’s sins against them and in entrusting the message (lit., “word”) of reconciliation to Paul. In other words, Paul’s apostolic ministry of preaching the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18 [“the word of the cross”]) is integral to God’s reconciliation of the world. As such, Paul is an official “coworker” with God (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Cor. 3:9), an apostle to the nations (cf. Rom. 11:13). With this bold, self-confident assertion, Paul completely dismisses the opposition to his apostleship and appeals once again to the divine commission upon which his ministry is solidly based. The reason Paul’s ministry is integral to God’s reconciliatory program is that preaching is necessary for the people to hear the message of the gospel in order to believe (cf. Rom. 10:14–17, citing Isa. 52:7 and Isa. 53:1).
5:20 Having presented himself as a minister of reconciliation with a message of reconciliation (vv. 18–19), Paul draws a conclusion (therefore, oun) from the preceding discussion about his stately apostolic commission and appeals directly to the Corinthians in light of it. This is crucial for Paul’s defense of his apostolic office in 2:14–7:4, for he states in no uncertain terms that Christ and God speak though him. First, Paul is one of Christ’s ambassadors. The term is frequently used of imperial legates, who represent the Roman emperor in foreign lands and govern there on his behalf with legionary troops (cf. H. Mason). As we have seen, Paul is thinking of his apostolic role in a world empire established by God and Christ analogous to the Pax Romana (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). The expression Christ’s in this context does not mean “for the cause of Christ,” but rather “on whose behalf.” Thus, in the word of the apostolic ambassador, Christ himself speaks. In this sense, the apostle represents Christ and is endowed with all the authority of the one he represents. Not appointed by human authorities (Gal. 1:1, 12), but by the risen Christ himself, Paul regards himself as the personal representative of Christ on earth (cf. 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17). This explains, in part, why the apostle shares in the sufferings and death of Christ (cf. 4:10–11) and also otherwise takes on the functions of Christ (e.g., his suffering and dying benefits others [1:6; 4:12]). Furthermore, although Paul’s opponents in Corinth fancy themselves to be “apostles of Christ” (11:13) and “servants of Christ” (11:23), Paul in effect disputes their claim by asserting that he is the personal representative of Christ on earth.
As an ambassador for Christ, Paul speaks as though God were making his appeal through us. Here again, we see the unity of Christ and God in undertaking activities together, including speaking: Paul is the ambassador of Christ, yet it is God who speaks through the apostle. The God who in Christ reconciled the world to himself uses the apostle as a mouthpiece to announce the good news and to summon people to accept the message. In the situation with the opponents, of course, Paul can appeal to no higher authority than God Almighty as the source of his apostolic ministry and message.
Having established his apostolic credentials as the spokesman of Christ and God, Paul gives a sample of his gospel preaching: We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. The NIV supplies the object you in the first line. But it is very unlikely that the exhortation is directed toward the Corinthians, since they are already believers and hence have already accepted the message of reconciliation that the apostle originally delivered to them. Elsewhere Paul does, of course, entertain the idea that the Corinthians may not be “in the faith” (cf. 6:1; 13:5), and he does exhort them to reconciliation (cf. 13:11). More probably, the implied object of Paul’s imploring here is the world (kosmos, cf. v. 19), and the Be reconciled to God is a direct citation of the message that, as an ambassador “for Christ” (hyper Christou), Paul preaches to the world “on behalf of Christ” (hyper Christou). In that case, Paul’s gospel message is an exhortation (cf. 5:11) to desist from rebellion against God and to appropriate by faith the reconciliation that God has accomplished in Christ. The application of the present section to the Corinthians does not come until 6:1 (so also M. Thrall).
5:21 Since there is no transition between verses 20 and 21, it is difficult to know exactly how verse 21 relates to the foregoing. Apparently, verse 21 continues the direct citation of Paul’s message of reconciliation from verse 20, providing, in effect, substantiation for the exhortation to be reconciled with God. As in verse 19, the acting subject is God; however, unlike verse 19, Christ is the object of the action. This is the only passage in which Paul refers directly to the sinlessness of Christ (who had [lit., “knew”] no sin), although other passages seem to presuppose it (cf. Rom. 5:19; 8:3; Phil. 2:8). Paul’s description of Christ in our text conforms to a traditional expectation about the Messiah, as well as to the statement about the Suffering Servant of the Lord (cf. Isa. 53:9: “For he did no lawlessness [anomia]”).
Can the same be said for what follows? God made Messiah sin for us. Interestingly enough, a text from Qumran (CD 14.18–19) expects that the Messiah of Aaron and Israel will appear and “atone for their iniquity.” The expression “Messiah of Aaron and Israel” may be elliptical for “Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of Israel” (so A. S. van der Woude). Even so, this text does not necessarily include the substitutionary aspect which 2 Corinthians 5:21 has. The sinless Christ was made sin “for us” (hyper h?m?n) in the sense that he took on the sinners’ curse in his atoning death on the cross. According to Galatians 3:13, Christ redeemed believers from the curse of the law by becoming a curse “for us” (hyper h?m?n), for it is written in Deuteronomy 21:23, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” As we have seen above, Paul the Pharisee probably applied this OT text against the crucified Christ while he knew Christ “according to the flesh” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16). After his encounter with the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus, however, he saw Christ in a different light, but continued to apply Deuteronomy 21:23 to the death of Christ, this time in a positive way as a reference to the substitutionary death of Christ for sinners. Paul realized that Christ was not the accursed sinner before God, but rather the deliverer who had come to die for the remission of sins of others. As he states in 2 Corinthians 5:14, “one died for all” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4; Rom. 4:25; 5:6, 8; 6:10; 1 Thess. 5:10). Paul understood the death of Christ in light of the sinless Suffering Servant of the Lord: “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6); “he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors” (cf. Isa. 53:12). It is also possible that becoming “sin” (hamartia) refers to becoming a “sin offering,” for in the LXX hamartia is sometimes used of the sin offering (cf. Lev. 4:21, 24; 5:12; 6:18). The Suffering Servant is said to be made an “offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10).
The purpose for which God made sinless Christ a substitute for sinners is that in him we might become the righteousness of God. As Paul stated in a previous letter to the Corinthians, “It is because of him [sc. God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). It is clear that the righteousness of God comes from him and is conferred on believers who are in Christ. Godless sinners, who previously possessed no righteousness of their own, receive righteousness in sinless Christ who, by a process of substitution, became a sin offering for them. In other words, believers identify with Christ in such a way that they die with Christ to the penalty for their sin (i.e., the curse of the law) and also share with Christ in his resurrection life and vindicated status.
6:1–2 Here Paul concludes 5:16–6:2 and urgently applies what he has been saying directly to the Corinthians. As in 6:14–7:1, the causal circ*mstantial participle in 6:1 introduces the conclusion in a way that draws together what has been said. Thus, in 6:1, as God’s fellow workers (lit., “Since we are fellow workers”) recalls 5:20 (cf. 1 Cor. 3:9: “For we are God’s fellow workers”). Furthermore, the verb to urge is the same as the verb “to make an appeal” in 5:20, although the subject is different in each case (God and Paul, respectively). In his mediatory role as minister of reconciliation, Paul now urges the Corinthians not to receive God’s grace in vain. The apostle assumes thereby that the Corinthians have indeed received the message of reconciliation that he originally delivered to them, and therefore that they have received the grace of God. But there is a thinly veiled threat here: If the Corinthians continue on their course of denying the legitimacy of Paul’s apostolic office, then they will have undermined their own salvation, for it is through Paul that they received the message of reconciliation and thus the grace of God itself (cf. 13:5). As we have seen, Paul’s ministry of reconciliation is inseparable from God’s reconciliation of the world. The tacit argument here is much the same as the one that we have already seen several times in the letter. Ultimately, the Corinthians cannot deny Paul’s original message to them and his mediatory role without at the same time rejecting the gospel and denying their own Christian existence (cf. 1:19; 3:1–6).
6:2 The reason (For, gar) that Paul urges the Corinthians not to receive the grace of God in vain is underscored in verse 2 by a verbatim citation of Isaiah 49:9 LXX, which stresses the eschatological timing of this grace. The introductory formula to the citation (legei gar) can be translated either “For he [sc. God] says” (so NIV) or “For it [sc. the Scripture] says” (so D.-A. Koch; cf. Rom. 9:17; 10:11; 1 Tim. 5:18). In the original context of Isaiah, however, Paul’s citation is introduced by “Thus says the Lord,” and so Paul most likely understands God as the unexpressed subject of 2 Corinthians 6:2a. The Lord himself, whom Paul represents and whose grace he has just mentioned, makes a pronouncement in the OT that has application in the present. Evidently, Paul understands the authoritative interpretation of Scripture as one way in which God makes his appeal though the apostle (cf. 5:20).
In its original context, Paul’s citation is part of the second Servant Song (49:1ff.), in which the Servant of the Lord is called to proclaim the restoration of Israel and the salvation of the world: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). This is the passage that is so determinative to Paul’s understanding of his own apostolic commission to the nations (cf. Gal. 1:15–16). As a text on the restoration of Israel, Isaiah 49:1ff. coheres with Paul’s emphasis in 2 Corinthians 5:16ff. on the new creation (Isa. 65:17–19; 66:22–23), which has been inaugurated through Christ, the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Isa. 53).
Paul goes on to draw the significance of the citation of Isaiah 49:8 for the Corinthians: “I tell you [lit., “Look!”], now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.” The word “Look!” links 6:2 with the “Look!” in verse 17 (not rendered in the NIV): The present time is the time of both the “new creation” and the “new things” that God promised in Isaiah. For Paul, the day of salvation and reconciliation that Isaiah prophesied has dawned. The fulness of time has come (Gal. 4:4). Therefore, the Corinthians must not forfeit the opportunity to take advantage of God’s mercy. The twofold “Look, now” in 6:2 reveals a sense of urgency in Paul’s authoritative, ambassadorial exhortation to the Corinthians.
Additional Notes
5:11 In the OT, the fear of the Lord is a central concept, and only a very brief sketch can be given here (see further H. F. Fuhs, “yārē’,” TDOT, vol. 6, pp. 290–315). The presence of God is considered a terrifying sight (Exod. 6:3; 20:18) because its holiness is potentially deadly (Gen. 16:13; 32:30; Exod. 19:21; 24:10–11; 33:18–23; Judg. 6:22–23; 13:22; 1 Sam. 6:19; 1 Kgs. 19:13; Isa. 6:5). An individual may experience the terrifying aspect of God’s presence in a dream or vision as well as in a theophany (cf. Gen. 28:17; Job 4:12–16; Dan. 10:8–9, 15–17). Israel fears the Lord because he delivered the people from Egypt (Exod. 14:31). In general, the mighty acts of God in history and in nature instill fear and reverence in people (cf. Isa. 25:3; Hab. 3:2; Zech. 9:5; 1 Kgs. 18:39; Job 37:1, 24; Pss. 33:8; 65:6–9; Jer. 5:22, 24; 10:7), and the Lord’s universal judgment brings fear upon the whole earth (cf. Ps. 76; Isa. 41:5). In Deuteronomic tradition, fear most often means “worship” in the sense of fidelity to the covenant of God (cf., e.g., Deut. 5:29; 6:2; 10:12, 20; 2 Kgs. 17:7–41). In the Psalms, “Yahweh-fearers” always refers to the community or nation that worships Yahweh (cf., e.g, Pss. 15:4; 22:24, 26; 31:20; 60:6; 66:16; 85:10), or to the devout who are faithful to Yahweh (cf. Pss. 25:14; 33:18; 34:8, 10; 103:11, 13, 17; 111:5; 119:74, 79; 145:19; 147:11). The “fear of the Lord” can even be used in a metonymy for torah (Ps. 19:10). In Wisdom literature, the “fear of the Lord” is a key concept, which teaches wisdom (Prov. 15:33), including proper conduct toward God, the king, and those in authority (cf. Prov. 24:21). According to Prov. 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (cf. also Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:29; 2:5; 9:10; 15:33). Since God’s ordinances are immutable and God is beyond human knowledge, “to fear God” means that mortals have no choice but absolute submission and strict obedience, relying on whatever God may decree (Eccl. 3:14).
For Paul, too, fear or reverence of God or Christ is foundational for the believer’s relationship to God (see Stanley E. Porter, “Fear, Reverence,” in DPL, pp. 291–93). The completion of the Corinthians’ sanctification, which includes cleansing themselves from every defilement of body and spirit, is to be grounded “in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). In Col. 3:22 Paul exhorts slaves to obey their earthly masters (kyrioi, pl.) in everything even as they fear the Lord (kyrios, sg.). Slaves should put themselves into the task, whatever it may be, as done for the Lord and not for their masters, since they know that from the Lord they will receive the inheritance as their reward (Col. 3:23–24). Paul exhorts the Philippians to follow Christ’s example of obedience (Phil. 2:6–11) and to work out their salvation with “fear and trembling” directed toward God (Phil. 2:12).
M. Thrall (Second Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 403) suggests that there is a certain circularity in Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians’ conscience in judging his apostolic integrity, since the apostle must have in mind the standards that have emerged by implication in his own description of apostolic ministry in the preceding chapters. This overlooks, however, that the Corinthians themselves know Paul and have experienced the effects of his ministry in their midst, particularly through his mediation of the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1–6). It is on this basis that the Corinthians are Paul’s “letter” of recommendation.
5:12 It is not impossible that the opponents boast in their own glorified faces (cf. 11:13). Here, however, their critique of Paul’s lack of a gloried face like that of Moses is more to the point (cf. Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 405).
5:13 A similar contrast of terms is found in Acts 26:24–25: Festus believed that Paul’s great learning had driven him mad, whereas Paul claims to be speaking “words of truth and mental soundness” (v. 25). The word “mental soundness” (sōphrosyne) here is a derivative of the verb used in 2 Cor. 5:13 (sōphronein, to be in one’s right mind).
On ecstasy and 1 Cor. 14, see Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT 2/36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), pp. 168–70. Cf. Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets?
5:15 Of course, Paul’s view of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice goes well beyond the OT law of atonement as given in Leviticus. According to Paul, the single sacrifice of Jesus provides universal atonement in a way that repeated cultic rites could not. As the Son of Man, Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Likewise, Paul understands Jesus as the Suffering Servant of the Lord, who bears the iniquities of the many (cf. esp. Isa. 53:4–5, 11–12; 1 Cor. 15:1–5; Rom. 4:25).
5:16 The relation of v. 16 to the previous context is crucial for Paul’s whole apology. If, however, most interpreters fail to recognize the point of 4:7–5:15, they also fail to see the function of 5:16, i.e., to draw a conclusion to Paul’s previous argument.
Cf. Martin Hengel, “‘Christos’ in Paul,” in Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 65–77, 179–88 (esp. p. 71); idem, “Christological Titles in Early Christianity,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 425–48 (esp. pp. 444–46).
Cf. Craig A. Evans, “Messianic Claimants of the First and Second Centuries,” in Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 239–52.
Cf. Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), pp. 64, 83–84.
Cf. August Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit. Untersuchungen zum Strafverfahren gegen Jesus (WUNT 21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980).
Cf. Ernst Baasland, “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians,” ST 38 (1984), pp. 135–50.
5:17 Other interpreters understand the two h?ste-sentences in vv. 16 and 17 as parallel to one another, both drawing out the consequences of vv. 14–15.
On the new creation and the restoration of Israel in Paul, see my article, “Restoration of Israel,” DPL, pp. 796–805. Paul’s concept of “comfort” in the thanksgiving of the letter (1:3–11) is drawn, in part, from the “Book of Comfort” (Isa. 40–55), which announces the restoration of Israel.
Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, “Some Reflections on Creation as a Topic of Old Testament Theology,” in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. Eugene Ulrich, et al.; JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 204–12.
On Isa. 43:18–19, see Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (AnBib 43; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970).
According to Ma’ase Merkabah (Schäfer, 680), the merkabah mystic experiences the transformation within his heart as if he had come into a “new world.”
Unfortunately, the NIV fails to translate the demonstrative particle “Look!” (idou) in the last line of our verse (“[Look,] the new has come!”). Although the particle seems superfluous, it actually provides important evidence of the verbal parallel to Isa. 43:18–19.
Rabbinic literature draws the comparison between the expulsion of Adam from the garden and the exile of Israel from the land (cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15.1.1).
5:18–21 This section, whether in whole or in part, is sometimes thought to contain pre-Pauline tradition. On these various hypotheses see Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 445–49.
5:18 Cilliers Breytenbach’s comprehensive study examines the whole vocabulary of reconciliation in Greco-Roman, Hellenistic-Jewish, and NT sources (Versöhnung. Eine Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie [WMANT 60; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989], pp. 45ff.); see also now Stanley E. Porter, Καταλλ?σω in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings (Estudios de Filologia Neotestamentaria 5; Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1994); idem, “Peace, Reconciliation,” DPL, pp. 695–99.
In Qumran, the messianic “Son of God” or “Son of the Most High” was expected to effect worldwide peace: “He will judge the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth and all provinces will worship him” (4Q246 2.5–6). Cf. John J. Collins, “The Son of God Text from Qumran,” in From John to Jesus: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. M. C. de Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 65–82.
5:19 Cf. Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
Cf. Martin Hengel, “‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110, 1,” in Le Trône de Dieu (ed. Marc Philonenko; WUNT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), pp. 108–94 (here esp. p. 142).
If the second participial clause in v. 19 (“… and placed in us the word of reconciliation”) alludes to Ps. 104:27 ?LXX (“[God] placed in them [sc. Moses and Aaron] the words of his signs”), then Paul is making another comparison between himself and Moses in context (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18).
5:20 Cf. Hugh J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (American Studies in Papyrology 13; Toronto: Hakkert, 1974).
Ambassadors were typically “worthy and excellent men” (cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.260; 14.251). An ambassador was not to be treated in a lawless manner, whether by persecuting him or killing him, for that would violate the “law of envoys” and would thereby constitute an act of war (cf. Josephus, Ant. 7.120; Philo, On the Life of Moses 1.258). Instead, an ambassador is to be shown “hospitality” (xenia), which includes lavish entertainment and gifts (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.165, 171; 14.198).
5:21 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, Die messianische Vorstellung der Gemeinde von Qumran (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3; Assen: van Gorcum, 1957), pp. 32–33, 60–61, 74.
According to N. T. Wright, v. 21 means to say that, as ambassador for Christ through whom God makes his appeal, Paul himself becomes a revelation in person of the covenant faithfulness of God (“On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Corinthians 5:21,” in Hay, ed., Pauline Theology, pp. 200–208).
6:1 On receive grace in vain, see Judith M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (WUNT 2/37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), pp. 277–80.
Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, p. 345: “Whether those in Corinth accept or reject Paul’s final defense of his ministry in this letter [sc. 2 Corinthians] will determine whether or not they too have been brought into this new covenant relationship with God, and thus, whether they too will be able to stand before the judgment of God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10–12). Given the unity between Paul’s person and his proclamation of the Gospel, to reject the former is to be excluded from the latter.” Paul calls for the Corinthians to test the genuine nature of their faith by their stance toward him, whether or not they accept his legitimacy as an apostle and his admonitions (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).
6:2 Cf. Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), pp. 25 n. 5, 261–63. On the comparison of Paul’s citation technique here with the Qumran biblical commentaries (pesharim), see Hays, Echoes of Scripture, pp. 171–72.
Cf. Jan Lambrecht, “The Favorable Time: A Study of 2 Cor. 6, 2a in Its Context,” in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. Für Joachim Gnilka (ed. Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelege; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), pp. 377–91.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by James M. Scott, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.
Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:15). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.
On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.
Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.
All the Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.
During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).
The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (6:48–49).
In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).
Passion week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:12; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).
The foundational story in all of the OT is the story of creation, found in Gen. 12. Throughout the history of interpretation there have been many approaches to understanding these chapters. In the modern world, discoveries from both science and archaeology have challenged some traditional convictions, and debates continue to rage. Still, what Gen. 1–2 communicates is generally clear: (1)it establishes Yahweh, the God of Israel, as the God by whose word all exists; (2)it presents for ancient readers a compelling argument for why they should worship Israel’s God and not other gods of the ancient world.
Whether animal or human, “creature” assumes creator. God’s unique creative activity is showcased in his majestic work: “creatures.” While the infinite God is not confined in the lives of his creatures, both are linked in a relationship of fidelity (Ps. 104).
A creature is a gift and has an obligation of service (Ps. 150). Scripture celebrates divine rule and creaturely dependence (Ps. 96). Creatures have roles, and the liturgy of doxology revels in a cosmic and eschatological drama (Ps. 148; Isa. 40:1231; 65:17–25). Humans are caretaking creatures (Ps. 8).
The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).
In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).
Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.
The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and good will between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.
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.
At times simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:58; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).
In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1Cor. 13:13).
In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]). These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe the whole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describe either a special ministry performed by an official functionary (1Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). In the early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchies but on services performed (1Tim. 3:113).
The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1Pet. 5:3).
Jesus’ ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NT writers describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39; Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministry of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).
The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).
Although ministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were those with special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart for particular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apart Apollos and Paul for special ministries (1Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7). The church called on special functionaries to carry out specific ministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individuals to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry the relief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2Cor. 8:19, 23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the elders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching and preaching and healing for the whole church.
All the ministries of the church, whether performed by believers in general or by some specially appointed functionary, were based on gifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1Tim. 1:12; 1Pet. 4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’s relationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians are equal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paul identifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ calls certain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. The ones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the church but rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph. 4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or her because those gifts were given for ministry to others (1Cor. 4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results in leadership.
It becomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others for ministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turn minister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2Tim. 2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is to build up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ (Rom. 15:15–17; 1Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1Thess. 2:19–20).
In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of the one praying.
The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.
Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:1920; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).
Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).
The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor. 14:15).
Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).
The restoration of a relationship from a state of hostility to one of peace.
The need for reconciliation between God and humanity begins when Adam and Eve rebel against God. What has been a relationship of intimate fellowship becomes one of fear and mistrust as Adam and Eve’s sin brings God’s judgment (Gen. 3:1419). But in the midst of judgment is the cryptic promise of a descendant of the woman who will crush the serpent and end the estrangement between God and humanity (3:15). The rest of the OT gives glimpses of what reconciliation will be like. God gives the sacrificial system as a means to deal with sin and restore fellowship with him (Lev. 1–7; 16). Despite Israel’s sin, God pursues reconciliation with Israel like a husband chases after a wayward wife (Hos. 1–3). Israel’s hope for reconciliation is often expressed in terms of a desire for peace. Although Aaron’s benediction asks God to give peace to his people in the present (Num. 6:24–26), God’s people look forward to the day when a covenant of peace will be established through the Suffering Servant and announced to the ends of the earth (Isa. 52–54).
What is largely hinted at in the OT is stated explicitly in the NT. Paul in particular explains how believers are reconciled to God and the consequences of that reconciliation. God, not humanity, has taken the initiative. Even though we were sinners subject to God’s wrath, alienated from God and enemies in thought and act, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:6–11; Col. 1:21). As the last Adam, Christ has removed the barrier that our sinful rebellion had created between God and humanity by taking the punishment for our sin. Thus reconciliation is a gift that God offers to humanity (Rom. 5:11), not something that we do to appease God. Because God has reconciled us to himself through Christ, he has entrusted us with the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor. 5:19). Using his people as ambassadors, God appeals to humanity to be reconciled through the work of Christ, whom, though sinless, God made sin for us “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2Cor. 5:20–21). God’s purpose in reconciliation is to present the believer “holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation” (Col. 1:22). The result of reconciliation is the joy that comes from being at peace with God (Rom. 5:1–2, 11). In view of this, Paul’s frequent greeting “grace and peace” in his letters takes on new light as his desire for believers to experience the reality of their reconciliation to God.
Reconciliation between God and humanity makes it possible for people truly to be reconciled to one another. Even the natural hostility between Jew and Gentile has been overcome by the work of Christ. Through the cross, Christ “destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations” (Eph. 2:14–15). As a result, Jew and Gentile have been brought together in one body as fellow citizens of God’s kingdom who stand on equal footing before God (Eph. 2:16–22).
Drawing upon the prophetic hope of the OT, the NT also speaks of a cosmic reconciliation. Through Christ, God is pleased “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col. 1:20). By this Paul does not mean the salvation of everyone, but rather that the reconciling work of Jesus is the means by which God restores the created order to peace. Whereas the first Adam’s sin brought a curse upon creation, Christ, as the last Adam, has brought peace that will culminate in new heavens and a new earth free from the effects of sin and death (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21–22). It is there that God will dwell with his people forever in perfect harmony (Rev. 21:2–5).
Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation.
Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this.
Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).
Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).
The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 57), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).
The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).
“Salvation” is the broadest term used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.
In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:57; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).
Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).
But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.
In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness.... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
“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).
Direct Matches
An ambassador is the official representative of a king orgovernment outside the realm of that ruler. In terms of theunderlying Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, the concept of ambassador inthe Bible largely overlaps with that of messenger, for which thereare several biblical terms. In other words, ambassadors (in themodern sense) are not easily distinguished from the numerous biblicalmessengers in terms of vocabulary alone. However, several biblicalnarratives involve royal or government messengers operating in anofficial capacity, on behalf of Moses (Num. 20:14), Judah (Ezek.17:15), Babylon (2 Chron. 32:31), and Egypt (2 Chron.35:21; Isa. 30:4). Several of these ambassadors were charged withforging a treaty with a foreign power.
Paultwice describes his own evangelistic ministry as an embassy on behalfof God. In 2 Cor. 5:20 he describes himself as one of “Christ’sambassadors,” and in Eph. 6:20 paradoxically as an “ambassadorin chains,” referring to his incarceration.
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 foundational story in all of the OT is the story ofcreation, found in Gen. 1–2. Throughout the history ofinterpretation there have been many approaches to understanding thesechapters. In the modern world, discoveries from both science andarchaeology have challenged some traditional convictions, and debatescontinue to rage. Still, what Gen. 1–2 communicates isgenerally clear: (1) it establishes Yahweh, the God of Israel,as the God by whose word all exists; (2) it presents for ancientreaders a compelling argument for why they should worship Israel’sGod and not other gods of the ancient world. On this second point, itmust be remembered that Israel’s belief in one God flew in theface of contemporary religious notions, where each nation had a highgod along with lesser gods. Hence, when reading Gen. 1–2, wemust keep in mind its ancient polemical dimension rather thanapproaching it with modern expectations.
Thediffering perspectives of Genesis 1 and 2. Evena quick reading of Gen. 1–2 shows that the perspectives oncreation in the two chapters are somewhat different. Genesis 1 isordered famously as a seven-day process, whereby humanity is createdas the pinnacle of God’s work on day six. On the seventh day,as is well known, God rested. Much has been made among someChristians about the need to read this chapter literally, but that nolonger seems to be the dominant view. Much less is a scientificexplanation winning the day (where the details of the text correspondto certain scientific models, which are themselves disputed). Acommonly accepted understanding of these chapters among Christiansgoes by various names, and it attempts to account for the poeticstructure of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1:2 we read that the earth was “formlessand empty.” What follows is a description of God providing“form” in days one through three and then a correspondingfilling of the “emptiness” in days four through six.Hence, in day one God separates light from darkness, and in day fourhe fills the void with the sun, the moon, and the stars. Day twoyields the expanses between the waters and the sky, and day fivefills the voids with water creatures and sky creatures. Day threeyields the land and vegetation, and day six fills the void with landcreatures, the crowning achievement being humanity.
Genesis2 provides a different perspective on the events. It seems thathumanity is created before there were any shrubs or plants. Apartfrom this difference in order, more important is the focus on Adamand Eve and their role in creation, as those called to work the landtogether. These two perspectives are not contradictory, since one caneasily understand Gen. 2 as explicating Gen. 1:26–30. Modernscholarship has largely assigned these two versions to two differentliterary sources (see Documentary Hypothesis), a theory based notonly on the different perspectives of the two stories but also onother differences, such as language and style. Regardless of thealleged origins of these stories, however, they are presented to ustogether in the OT. As a unit, along with what follows in Gen. 3–11,these early chapters in Genesis in some ways stand in stark contrastto creation stories of the ancient Mesopotamian world, while at thesame time adopting many of the concepts and much of the language ofthose stories.
Modernand ancient questions.To enter into this discussion is to ask, “What are theseopening chapters of Genesis trying to say? How did the Israeliteshear the creation story in Genesis?” It sometimes is temptingto read the creation story and ask modern questions. For example,“How does the Genesis creation narrative conform to scientificknowledge?” Modern questions such as these are not, in and ofthemselves, out of bounds. In fact, they may be unavoidable to acertain degree. But we must remember that ancient Israelites did notask such questions. In the ancient Near East described in Genesis,which is thousands of years old, there was no science in any senseclose to the way we think of it today.
Thecreation story was written not to answer modern questions but ratherto address Israel’s questions. Beginning about the middle ofthe nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century,archaeologists discovered a number of creation stories from differentpeoples of the ancient Near East that help put the biblical accountin context. These accounts tell stories of creation in which a numberof gods are responsible. In one prominent example from ancientBabylon, creation was a result of a bloody conflict among the gods.Genesis 1 shares some of the descriptions of one or more of theseother accounts (e.g., light exists before the creation of the sun,the moon, and the stars).
Thetheology of creation.Where Gen. 1 stands out is in its insistence that Israel’s Godalone created the world through his spoken word. The purpose of sucha declaration is not to satisfy contemporary intellectual curiositiesabout the nature of matter or the first moments of the universe’sexistence. Its purpose is to declare to the Israelites that theirGod, not the gods of the ancient world, is responsible for everythingthere is, and that he alone is the one, therefore, who is worthy oftheir worship. The creation story is not an intellectual exercise butrather a deeply religious one. The Israelites lived in a world whereevery surrounding nation had a plurality of gods (pantheon). TheIsraelites were different. They had one God, and this is the messagethat rings loud and clear from Gen. 1.
ThatYahweh, Israel’s God, is alone the creator is not an abstracttheological statement. It is a call to worship. This is why, forexample, numerous passages in the OT burst out in praise of Yahwehthe creator. One example is Ps. 19. God’s glory is so great andso apparent that even creation itself is said to speak of it. Thepsalm uses specific Genesis language: the “heavens” andthe “firmament” proclaim what God has done (these wordsoccur in Gen. 1:1, 6–8, and the Hebrew words in Gen. 1 and Ps.19 are the same). Even though the heavens and the firmament have nopowers of speech, as the psalm tells us (19:3–4), neverthelessthey are “heard” throughout the world because of theawesomeness of the sun’s circuit (19:5–6). The message isthis: if you want to see how great God is, look up.
Butthe psalm does not end there. David is not simply interested in acontemplative posture for his people. Six verses about creation arefollowed, somewhat abruptly, by eight verses about the law. Clearly,a connection between them is being established, and that connectionseems to be fairly straightforward: knowing God as creator shouldhave an effect on how you behave. The God who created the heavens isalso the God who gave you the law, David seems to be saying. And asworthy as God is of praise for the creation (even the heavens and thefirmament join in), so too is the law. It is to be desired more thangold or sweet honey (v. 10). Knowing God as creator has verypractical implications.
Creationand re-creation. Anotherimportant recurrence of creation in the OT, which also has practicalimplications, concerns God’s saving activity. In brief,according to the OT (and the NT as well), when God saves his people,it is an act of “re-creation.” One can see this themedeveloped in numerous places. For example, God is Israel’s“maker” in texts such as Ps. 95:6; Hos. 8:14. These twotexts are found in the context of God having delivered the Israelitesfrom Egypt; their deliverance corresponds to their “creation”as God’s people. Similarly, Isa. 43:14–17 concernsIsrael’s captivity in Babylon and what God will do to deliverhis people. The prophecy describes their deliverance by using“exodus” language and in doing so refers to Yahweh asIsrael’s “Creator” (v. 15).
Thisconnection between creation and redemption (re-creation) is also wellarticulated in the NT. For example, the opening words of John’sGospel echo the very first verses of the Bible: “in thebeginning.” With the coming of Christ, there is a newbeginning. His act of redemption is described as the act of a secondor new Adam (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:22). When oneconfesses faith in Christ, one is “born again” or “fromabove” (John 3:3, 7; see also John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23).To be a Christian is to start over, to begin anew, or as Paul put it,“If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old hasgone, the new is here!” (2 Cor. 5:17). And in Rev. 22:2paradise is described as containing a “tree of life,” towhich God’s people once again have access. At the end, in otherwords, it will be as it was in the beginning. In the coming of Christwe see a new creation. That new creation is inaugurated in his firstcoming, where the church, his redeemed people, by the power of theSpirit, live as newly created beings in a fallen world. At his secondcoming, this new creation will be complete, and all creation will beredeemed.
Origins,Composition, and Constitution
Origins.The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins.Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn toE-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptiantexts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide ahelpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern toexplain the origin and role of humanity in the world.
Onedistinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generallyspeak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer tothis phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation betterserves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as alabor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes anoriginal human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. Thisphenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merelycreated to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is aspecial creation of God, intended to bear his image.
Composition.The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The LordGod formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into hisnostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life(1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity isalso quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from thedust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earthand that which is dead. The wordplay between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears tobe a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the majorconnection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.
Constitution.Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit atrichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2Cor.4:16; 5:1–9; 1Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though theGreek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body(sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf.Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2Cor. 4:11). Either approach isforeign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in theanthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity inrelation to Christ’s new creative work.
Formand Function
Form:male and female.Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah)(Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a“suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that theunderlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively inreference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitablehelper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, orstatus.
TheBible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man,probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22).Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares aconnection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connectionwith a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often istaken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptivestatement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).
Function:image of God.The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by Godis that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of theimage of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen.1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancientNear East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. Inthe Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2Cor.4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although thismay imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function overthe rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how imagesare meant to represent a god’s presence.
Humanityin Pauline Thought
Paul’sconception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as hisvision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as“risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the finaldestiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1Cor.15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of theeffects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom.8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1Cor.15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation”(Gal. 6:15; cf. 2Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of thecosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being unitedwith Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things”into “new things” (2Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19),this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality isalready partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in thispresent “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “thereis neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there maleand female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1Cor.12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in thetension of already beginning to experience the act of new creationand not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom.8:18–30; 2Cor. 12:5–10).
The word “impute” means “to think of,regard, reckon, or credit something to someone that comes fromanother.” The language comes from the business world, whererecords are kept indicating credits and debits to a person’saccount. This nontheological sense of imputation is found in Philem.18–19, where Paul tells Philemon that if his slave Onesimus,who apparently had stolen from his master before running away, owesPhilemon anything, “Charge it to me.” But the dominantuse of imputation in the Bible is with reference to sin andrighteousness.
Althoughimputation is most clearly taught in the NT, it is present in the OTas well. A prime example is the Day of Atonement ritual, in whichAaron lays his hands on the scapegoat and confesses the sins of thepeople before releasing it into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20–22).The act of laying his hands on the scapegoat imputes the sins of thepeople onto the goat.
Inthe NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’swritings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1–2, he assertsthat God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom.4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt wereimputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’sobedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Paulsummarizes the same idea elsewhere as follows: “God made himwho had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become therighteousness of God” (2Cor. 5:21). The believer’ssin is credited to Jesus, while Jesus’ righteousness iscredited to the believer. In the account ledgers that determine aperson’s standing in God’s court of law, God transfers tothe believer the complete obedient righteousness of Jesus while atthe same time transferring to Jesus the sinful rebellion of thebeliever. Imputation even extends beyond righteousness: Jesus “hasbecome for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness,holiness and redemption” (1Cor. 1:30).
Imputationmakes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is onlyon the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can bejustified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstracttheological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believerrelates to God.
The word “impute” means “to think of,regard, reckon, or credit something to someone that comes fromanother.” The language comes from the business world, whererecords are kept indicating credits and debits to a person’saccount. This nontheological sense of imputation is found in Philem.18–19, where Paul tells Philemon that if his slave Onesimus,who apparently had stolen from his master before running away, owesPhilemon anything, “Charge it to me.” But the dominantuse of imputation in the Bible is with reference to sin andrighteousness.
Althoughimputation is most clearly taught in the NT, it is present in the OTas well. A prime example is the Day of Atonement ritual, in whichAaron lays his hands on the scapegoat and confesses the sins of thepeople before releasing it into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20–22).The act of laying his hands on the scapegoat imputes the sins of thepeople onto the goat.
Inthe NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’swritings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1–2, he assertsthat God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom.4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt wereimputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’sobedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Paulsummarizes the same idea elsewhere as follows: “God made himwho had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become therighteousness of God” (2Cor. 5:21). The believer’ssin is credited to Jesus, while Jesus’ righteousness iscredited to the believer. In the account ledgers that determine aperson’s standing in God’s court of law, God transfers tothe believer the complete obedient righteousness of Jesus while atthe same time transferring to Jesus the sinful rebellion of thebeliever. Imputation even extends beyond righteousness: Jesus “hasbecome for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness,holiness and redemption” (1Cor. 1:30).
Imputationmakes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is onlyon the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can bejustified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstracttheological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believerrelates to God.
Origins,Composition, and Constitution
Origins.The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins.Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn toE-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptiantexts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide ahelpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern toexplain the origin and role of humanity in the world.
Onedistinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generallyspeak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer tothis phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation betterserves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as alabor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes anoriginal human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. Thisphenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merelycreated to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is aspecial creation of God, intended to bear his image.
Composition.The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The LordGod formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into hisnostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life(1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity isalso quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from thedust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earthand that which is dead. The wordplay between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears tobe a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the majorconnection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.
Constitution.Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit atrichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2Cor.4:16; 5:1–9; 1Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though theGreek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body(sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf.Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2Cor. 4:11). Either approach isforeign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in theanthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity inrelation to Christ’s new creative work.
Formand Function
Form:male and female.Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah)(Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a“suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that theunderlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively inreference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitablehelper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, orstatus.
TheBible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man,probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22).Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares aconnection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connectionwith a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often istaken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptivestatement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).
Function:image of God.The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by Godis that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of theimage of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen.1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancientNear East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. Inthe Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2Cor.4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although thismay imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function overthe rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how imagesare meant to represent a god’s presence.
Humanityin Pauline Thought
Paul’sconception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as hisvision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as“risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the finaldestiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1Cor.15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of theeffects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom.8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1Cor.15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation”(Gal. 6:15; cf. 2Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of thecosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being unitedwith Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things”into “new things” (2Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19),this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality isalready partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in thispresent “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “thereis neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there maleand female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1Cor.12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in thetension of already beginning to experience the act of new creationand not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom.8:18–30; 2Cor. 12:5–10).
“New” basically carries three senses in theBible: (1)the beginning of a cycle of time such as the newmoon, the beginning of the month; (2)fresh, pristine, orunused; (3)formerly unknown or recently coming into existence.Often, the latter two senses overlap and become difficult todistinguish. In certain cases the second sense is emphasized, and theactual age is not of primary concern: new grain (Lev. 23:16), newwine (Josh. 9:13), new ropes (Judg. 15:13), new cart (1Sam.6:7), new cloak (1Kings 11:29), new bowl (2Kings 2:20),and new tomb (Matt. 27:60). The third sense often is associated withthe time of final restoration: God will do a new thing (Isa. 43:19),make a new covenant (Jer. 31:31), and create a new heavens and a newearth (Isa. 65:17).
TheBible places a high priority on the new works that God accomplishes,for there is little hope that people are capable of doing anythingnew (cf. Eccles. 1:9–10). These new works are contrasted withthe old. There is continuity between them as the former establishes afoundation for the latter, but there is also discontinuity as thelatter surpasses the former. Therefore, God will make a new (better)covenant (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:13), a new (better) heart (Ezek. 36:26),a new (better) creation (2Cor. 5:17), and a new (better)heavens and earth (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1).
The restoration of a relationship from a state of hostilityto one of peace. As such, the concept is far more common than thenumber of specific references might suggest. The Bible speaks ofreconciliation on three levels: (1)God and humanity; (2)humanbeings with one another; and (3)God and creation.
Godand Humanity
Theneed for reconciliation between God and humanity begins when Adam andEve rebel against God. What has been a relationship of intimatefellowship becomes one of fear and mistrust as Adam and Eve’ssin brings God’s judgment (Gen. 3:14–19). But in themidst of judgment is the cryptic promise of a descendant of the womanwho will crush the serpent and end the estrangement between God andhumanity (3:15). The rest of the OT gives glimpses of whatreconciliation will be like. God gives the sacrificial system as ameans to deal with sin and restore fellowship with him (Lev. 1–7;16). Despite Israel’s sin, God pursues reconciliation withIsrael like a husband chases after a wayward wife (Hos. 1–3).Israel’s hope for reconciliation is often expressed in terms ofa desire for peace. Although Aaron’s benediction asks God togive peace to his people in the present (Num. 6:24–26), God’speople look forward to the day when a covenant of peace will beestablished through the Suffering Servant and announced to the endsof the earth (Isa. 52–54).
Whatis largely hinted at in the OT is stated explicitly in the NT. Paulin particular explains how believers are reconciled to God and theconsequences of that reconciliation. God, not humanity, has taken theinitiative. Even though we were sinners subject to God’s wrath,alienated from God and enemies in thought and act, Christ died for us(Rom. 5:6–11; Col. 1:21). As the last Adam, Christ has removedthe barrier that our sinful rebellion had created between God andhumanity by taking the punishment for our sin. Thus reconciliation isa gift that God offers to humanity (Rom. 5:11), not something that wedo to appease God. Because God has reconciled us to himself throughChrist, he has entrusted us with the ministry of reconciliation(2Cor. 5:19). Using his people as ambassadors, God appeals tohumanity to be reconciled through the work of Christ, whom, thoughsinless, God made sin for us “so that in him we might becomethe righteousness of God” (2Cor. 5:20–21). God’spurpose in reconciliation is to present the believer “holy inhis sight, without blemish and free from accusation” (Col.1:22). The result of reconciliation is the joy that comes from beingat peace with God (Rom. 5:1–2, 11). In view of this, Paul’sfrequent greeting “grace and peace” in his letters takeson new light as his desire for believers to experience the reality oftheir reconciliation to God.
HumanBeings with One Another
Reconciliationbetween God and humanity makes it possible for people truly to bereconciled to one another. Even the natural hostility between Jew andGentile has been overcome by the work of Christ. Through the cross,Christ “destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands andregulations” (Eph. 2:14–15). As a result, Jew and Gentilehave been brought together in one body as fellow citizens of God’skingdom who stand on equal footing before God (Eph. 2:16–22).
Asevidence of being reconciled to God, believers are called to pursuereconciliation with others: “If it is possible, as far as itdepends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18).Pursuing reconciliation with others is so important that Jesus warnshis followers that failure to do so can cause a rift in their ownfellowship with God. That is why in the Lord’s Prayer God’speople are to pray, “Forgive us our sins, for we also forgiveeveryone who sins against us” (Luke 11:4). Since God hasforgiven us for our rebellion against him, we ought to forgive otherswho have wronged us (Col. 3:13). Believers are even instructed toseek reconciliation with others before entering the presence of God(Matt. 5:23–24).
Godand Creation
Drawingupon the prophetic hope of the OT, the NT also speaks of a cosmicreconciliation. Through Christ, God is pleased “to reconcile tohimself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, bymaking peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col. 1:20).By this Paul does not mean the salvation of everyone, but rather thatthe reconciling work of Jesus is the means by which God restores thecreated order to peace. Whereas the first Adam’s sin brought acurse upon creation, Christ, as the last Adam, has brought peace thatwill culminate in new heavens and a new earth free from the effectsof sin and death (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21–22). It is there that Godwill dwell with his people forever in perfect harmony (Rev. 21:2–5).
To be in one’s right mind is to be sane. After Jesusexorcizes the demons called “Legion,” the formerlypossessed man sits at Jesus’ feet, completelysane, no longer out of control (Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35). Paul uses theterm (Gk. sōphroneō) to contrast sanity with insanity(2Cor. 5:13).
Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of theBible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness,correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, andinnocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it hasimportant implications for the doctrine of salvation (see alsoJustification).
OldTestament
Divinerighteousness.Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories ontoOT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness isconformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness,justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many andvaried uses of righteousness language in the OT stands thepresupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense(e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is theexpression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), andall other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derivedfrom this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightnessin his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut.4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts arerighteous (Judg. 5:11; 1Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgmentsare righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness(Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked toGod’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71)and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader thandeliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding therighteous), though it does include it.
Humanrighteousness. Relatedto humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite ofwickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, whereit relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of theworld as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). Godreigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humansshould align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousnesscan be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “myrighteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “theirrighteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found inpoetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust areparallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).
Itseems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was moreconcrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of mostcontemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understandingrighteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous personis sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness inthe OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7),there are many more references to a righteousness grounded inparticular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10).Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpfuldistinction between “ordinary” and “absolute”righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind ofrighteousness that we intend when making comments such as “mywife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broadperspective, that her life is characterized predominantly byrighteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness,absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparativerighteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1Sam. 24:17;Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is theextraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work ofGod; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.
NoncanonicalJewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varyinggreatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of humanand divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often isassociated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poorand is contrasted with wickedness.
InGreco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtuesand thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Romanrighteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind ofexternal norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact thatrighteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Romanliterature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often wereembedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not onlyviolated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, butalso impacted humans.
NewTestament
Ordinaryhuman righteousness. Righteousnesslanguage is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in lightof OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit withthe Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people,and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conductwith respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness(Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own(e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While thespecific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in theGospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will iswidely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness,mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continuethese general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related topersonal conduct (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim.2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor.6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An exampleof righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostituteRahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).
TheNT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In theSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirementsof righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, ashocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners ratherthan the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitlyquestions the righteousness of the “righteous.” Insimilar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness ofone’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke18:9).
Divinerighteousness. TheNT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to Godhimself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf.Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commandsand laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge(2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does notcompromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26).The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness andwickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation inrighteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g.,Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52;22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilledrighteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating completeconformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). Healso fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his savingactivity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).
“Therighteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness.Thereis a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness andhis faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66).Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’ssaving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g.,Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness ofGod,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22[2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousnessof God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God”could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness fromGod (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to hisrighteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms),or some combination of these.
Therighteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “therighteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from theMosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom.1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarifiedin that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews andGentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguishedfrom righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26).In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a characterquality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness ofGod” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).
InRom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “therighteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their ownrighteousness because they are not submitting to “therighteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’srighteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectationsof his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness ofGod” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus(e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key tounderstanding “the righteousness of God” in the othertexts also.
InRom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, whichis the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5,16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust inJesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25)enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). InJesus we become the righteousness of God (2Cor. 5:21). Therighteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealedand manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ,whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous inChrist.
The term “salvation” is the broadest one used torefer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about byhumankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one ofthe central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis throughRevelation.
OldTestament
Inmany places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued fromphysical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility ofretribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, Ipray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). Theactions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7;47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray forsalvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss.17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).
Relatedto this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its kingwere saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus,whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to theEgyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army(Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history ofIsrael, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether througha judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or evena shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).
Butthese examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritualcomponent as well. God did not save his people from physical dangeras an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to savethem from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation fromsin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does notprovide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearestplaces that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa.40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesiedreturn are seen as the physical manifestation of the much morefundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address thatfar greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servantwould once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa.52:13–53:12).
NewTestament
Asin the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescuedfrom physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being savedfrom various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor.1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fiercestorm, Jesus’ disciplescry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”(Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospelsand Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō,used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman withthe hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road(Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō.The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgivingsomeone’ssins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost fromtheir sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holisticsalvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the newheaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensivedescriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people fromtheir sins (see below).
Components
Inseveral passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term forthe totality of what God has done for his people in and throughChrist. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that ittakes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration”refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person fromspiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7;Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of Goddeclaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis ofChrist’s sacrificial death and life of perfect obedience (Rom.3:21–5:12; Gal. 2:14–21). “Atonement”describes Christ’s payment for sin and resulting forgiveness(Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). “Redemption” capturesthe reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of theirslavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7;5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardenedrebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2Cor.5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extendsthat reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom hereconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom.8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” Godsets his people apart for his special purposes and progressivelychanges them into the image of Christ (1Cor. 1:30 ESV, NRSV,NASB; cf. Rom. 8:29). The final component is “glorification,”when God brings to completion the work of salvation by granting hispeople resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death,and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30;1Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).
Prepositionsof Salvation
Anotherway that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through thevarious prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in thefollowing list are among the more significant.
From.Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is notsurprising that Scripture describes that from which believers aresaved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all mytransgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible onlythrough Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people fromtheir sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus onthe cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death ofChrist believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10).At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus savedpeople from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result ofthese and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the dayof Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from thiscorrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimonyof Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and itsconsequences.
To/into.Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/intocertain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves,believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory ofthe children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through thecross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness andbrought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13).Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace intowhich believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’swork on their behalf (John 14:27).
By.Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to expressthe instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not bysword or spear that the Lord saves” (1Sam. 17:47). In thebroadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel(1Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by thegrace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can alsoexpress the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israelwas that it was saved from its enemies by God (Deut. 33:29; Isa.45:17). The same thing is meant when Scripture speaks of God savinghis people by his right hand (Ps. 17:7) or his name (Ps. 54:1).
Through.The consistent testimony of the Bible is that salvation comes throughfaith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have beenjustified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal.3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “butthat which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). Theremarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have beenaccomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).
In.Especially in Paul’s writings the various components ofsalvation (see above) are modified with the phrase “in Christ”or “in him.” Believers are chosen (Eph. 1:4), redeemed(Eph. 1:7), justified (Gal. 2:17), and sanctified (1Cor. 1:2)in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenlyrealms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).
With.Many of the components of salvation that believers experience aresaid to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united withChrist in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4–11;Gal. 2:20). With Christ, believers have been made alive, raised up,and seated in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:13).Because of their union with Christ, believers share in hisinheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1Pet. 1:4). Eventhe very life of the believer is said to be currently “hiddenwith Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).
Tensesof Salvation
TheBible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses.Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believersthat “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he canalso speak of himself and other believers as those “who arebeing saved” (1Cor. 1:18; 2Cor. 2:15), pointing toa process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuringbelievers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2),he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’swrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).
Theuse of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet”dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, andascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. Butthe final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvationmust still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a newheaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).
Conclusion
Withouta proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of itsrebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makeslittle sense. Because sin is humanity’s greatest problem,salvation is humanity’s greatest need. Given the breadth,width, and depth of what God has done to save his people from theirsins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrewsasks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?”(2:3).
In classical Greek, “world” (kosmos)communicated the idea that the external universe is a well-orderedsystem. In early Greek usage, the term was used with reference tospecific types of social orderings, such as the seating order ofrowers (Homer, Od. 13.77), the order of soldiers (Homer, Il. 12.225),and well-ordered political states such as Sparta (Herodotus, Hist.1.65).
CreatedWorld
Inthe OT, the notion of the created “world” departed fromthe Greek understanding specifically in that creation is never seenas an independent entity controlled by an impersonal, all-embracingorder. Rather, the universe, usually described with the phrase “theheavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; 2:1, 4; Ps. 113:6; Jer.10:11) or at times the “all” or “all things”(Ps. 103:19; Jer. 10:16), is always understood in its relationship toits creator: “He who created the heavens, he is God; he whofashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it tobe empty, but formed it to be inhabited—he says: ‘I amthe Lord, and there is no other’ ” (Isa. 45:18).Here, the “world” (“earth”) refers to thematerial elements that make up the planet (see also Jer. 32:17; Zech.12:1) and the sum total of the entire universe (cf. Acts 17:24). Evenin the account of creation in Gen. 1:1–2:4, where many of theelements of the physical world are mentioned (waters, firmament,stars, etc.), the primary intent of the account is to convey that Godis Lord over everything because he is the Creator. Often thesecreated elements that make up the world are praised not for their owninherent beauty, but as a testimony to the majesty, supremacy, andomnipotence of the Creator (Pss. 8; 19:1–6; 33:6–9). InPs. 148:3–6 the elements within the natural order (kosmos) areinstructed to praise God: “Praise him, sun and moon; praisehim, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and youwaters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for athis command they were created, and he established them for ever andever—he issued a decree that will never pass away.”
Thoughnot providing a comprehensive description, the OT does at times referto how the world is constructed as a whole. The “vault”(Gen. 1:6–20 [RSV: “firmament”]) of heavenseparates the waters above from the waters below (which arerestrained by God’s sovereign care [Gen. 1:7; 7:11; 49:25]),and this area or chamber rests on “pillars” (Job 26:11).At times the earth is described as a disc with the sanctuary as itscenter point (Judg. 9:37; Ezek. 38:12), which rests on pillars (Job9:6). There is an underworld, from which there is no return (Job10:21); however, the OT does not engage in the kind of speculationregarding the underworld as is evident in the Greco-Roman tradition.
Earthand Its Inhabitants
Theterm “world” conveys other nuances in the Bible. It oftenrefers to the inhabitants of the earth or the place of human life:“He rules the world in righteousness and judges the peopleswith equity” (Ps. 9:8 [cf. Pss. 96:13; 98:9]); or, “Comenear, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let theearth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes outof it!” (Isa. 34:1). Also, in the Gospels “world”is used in this way: “What good is it for someone to gain thewhole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36). Matthew 4:8refers to all the kingdoms of the world. Also the expressions “cominginto the world” (John 1:9; 3:19), “in the world”(John 1:10; 2Cor. 1:12), and “leave this world”(1Cor. 5:10) can be understood as referring to the sphere ofhuman life.
UngodlyCulture and Worldview
“World”can also refer to something more than the material world or humanityin general; it can refer to the entire cultural value system or worldorder that is hostile toward God. The “world” is a commonbiblical way of referring to the ungodly worldview and lifestyle thatcharacterize human life in its rebellion against the Creator. Thecourse of the world is profoundly affected by fallen humans, throughwhom death came into the world and rules over it (Rom. 5:12).Therefore, Paul can claim that “the whole world” hasbecome guilty before God (Rom. 3:19), and even the created world isaffected by such rebellion (8:20–22). Paul especially links“this world” with “this age” (1Cor.3:19; 5:10; Eph. 2:2 NET), which God has judged (Rom. 3:6). Johndeclares that Satan is the “prince of this world” (John12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Paul refers to Satan as the “god of thisworld” (2Cor. 4:4 ESV, NRSV, NASB), who is able to blindindividuals to the truth and who animates human rebellion (Eph. 2:2).In this sense, God and the world are strictly separate: “Don’tyou know that friendship with the world means enmity against God?Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes anenemy of God” (James 4:4). Because of this call to an exclusiverelationship with God, believers are mandated to resist and evenconfront the world. Followers of Christ must not be taken captive byphilosophy or the “elemental spiritual forces of this world”(Col. 2:8, 20), since, as Paul says, “the worldhas beencrucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).
Butit is the world that designates the location and object of God’ssaving activity. Indeed, God sent his Son into this world in order toreconcile it to himself (2Cor. 5:19). Jesus, the sacrificialLamb of God, “takes away the sins of the world” (John1:29). Out of love for this world, God sent his Son (John 3:1), notto judge it but to save it: “God did not send his Son into theworld to condemn the world, but to save the world through him”(John 3:17).
Althoughbelievers live in the world (1Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:15) and musthave dealings with the world, ultimately they are not of the world(John 17:14). Remaining in Christ, believers are able to demonstratein the world the belief and practice of the new commandment to love(John 13:34; 15:9). Therefore, Christians must maintain a criticaldistance from the world’s system: “Do not love the worldor anythingin the world. If anyone loves the world, love forthe Father is not in them. For everything inthe world—thelust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comesnot from the Father but from the world” (1John 2:15–16[cf. James 1:27; 4:4]). Believers are to avoid the seductive power ofthe world and not abandon themselves to it; they are to follow theirLord in proclaiming God’s project of reconciling the world tohimself through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2Cor.5:18).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
2 Corinthians 5:11--6:2
is mentioned in the definition.
Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life,wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such asrespiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequatelyencompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.
TheBeginning of Death
Deathis introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing theprohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of goodand evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of thedivine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells thefirst man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you willcertainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a usefulbasis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.
First,as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor thewoman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eatingthe fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblicalnotion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointingto the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation andseparation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed byJesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and byPaul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sinsand transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the commonpunishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cutoff from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen.9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss ofaccess to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first manand woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, buttheir fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and theintimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.
Second,the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, asoriginally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12;6:23; 1Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortalin the same manner as God (cf. 1Tim. 6:16), but rather thatthey were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death butsustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through theprovision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once theywere cut off from the source of life, death ensued.
Theaccount of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us littleabout how death affected animals, since the Bible consistentlypresents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirmshuman ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans andanimals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is notentirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sinfor humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to thefall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortalityprior to the fall.
Deathin the Old Testament
Deathis frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from itsinitial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presentedas that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss.18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the authorof Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines anypossible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). Thetragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, fromGod (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and frompeople. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality andprofundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17;cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present deathmore positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlightthe appalling circ*mstances of the speaker’s life rather thanany blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, seeRev.9:6).
TheOT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a gooddeath as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. SoAbraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17)are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, somepassages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,”suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death,presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead arenever explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death withinlanguage used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).
Althoughthere are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of thedead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show thatburial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23;cf. 1Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriateburial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillbornchild is better off than someone who lives a long life but receivesno burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation ofthose not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16;16:4).
Lifeafter Death in the Old Testament
Beliefin some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of theancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to thestate of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoingexistence that could even surpass what one may have experiencedbefore death (although such an opportunity was a reasonableexpectation only for the upper classes, while the general populationprobably had more modest expectations of the nature of theirexistence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefsdepicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but thevery few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensurethem some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there waslittle hope for any positive experience following death.
TheOT, however, has little to say about the state of those who havedied. The widespread belief in some form of continued existencebeyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in theabsence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probablyassumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death.Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, suchas the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1Sam.28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2Kings2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones(2Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as“gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29;Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead(sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spiritsof the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generallydescribed as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, thereare prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death(e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’sdeath (Ezek. 18:23, 32).
Deathin the New Testament
TheNT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view ofdeath presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence ofand punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity isstated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by thenotion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead intheir sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death,according to Paul, is the last enemy (1Cor. 15:26), and yet todie is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being withChrist, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” thanbeing alive in this body in this world.
Centralto both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death inthe Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’death provides the basis for countering the consequences of theoriginal rebellion against God by the first couple (2Cor.5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itselfdestroyed death (2Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesusoffers—eternal life—is available to the believer in thepresent (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimatelyabolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe inhim will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).
TheNT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the deadfrom the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearlypresented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of theexistence of distinctions among those who have died, such that therich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used inthe LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus isfar off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a dangerin reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflectsomething of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among somein Jesus’ day.
TheNT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev.2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to thestate of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from whichthere will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ willnot experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwellingplace with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).
The English word “atonement” comes from anAnglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”;thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In someways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliationthan our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness”as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity isachieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongsdone. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achievedthis “onement” between God and sinful humanity.
Theneed for atonement comes from the separation that has come aboutbetween God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there isthe understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatureson account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah,“Your iniquities have separated you from your God”(59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies”(Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effectreconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’sholiness and justice.
OldTestament
Inthe OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins wereatoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, andan amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrificewas reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given themthe blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement foryourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement forone’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basicoperating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of theblood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer.However, there have been significant scholarly debates regardingwhether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understandingof atonement.
Themeaning of “to atone.”First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrewword kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popularsuggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease,to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert.Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little ornothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purifythe tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impuritiesthat attach to them on account of the community’s sin. Thistheory, though most probably correct in what it affirms,unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacleand furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mentionatonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev.8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts inLeviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer(e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sinfor the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning ofkapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meaningsoverlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in somepassages, and another one in others.
Therehas also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying ahand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2).This has traditionally been understood as an identification of theofferer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’ssins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and theargument made instead that it only signifies that the animal doesindeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offerit. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seenas complementary to what has traditionally been understood by thisgesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when thepriest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sinand wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on thegoat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm thecorrectness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thusbest seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; itdies in his stead.
Therelationship between God and the offerer. Second,granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins,the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on therelationship between God and the offerer. The question here iswhether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offeringexpiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does itpropitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does itappease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath isremoved? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seemslogical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On theother hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possiblybe a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there arecertainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passageswhere something like “appease” or “pacify”appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30;Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect ofatonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.
Inconjunction with this last point, it is also important to note thatthere are a number of places where it is said that God does thekapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept thisatonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 Godwill “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3(ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions”(ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord,who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV),God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity.Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for yourname’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as“ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egyptfor your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will“make atonement” for all the sins that Israel hascommitted. It may be that in most of these passages “atone”is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However,as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages,the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or istaking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins ofthe people. It is important to remember God’s declaration inLev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of thesacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, nomatter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that Godgraciously grants to his covenant people.
Thatleads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa.52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my[the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who“took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was“pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed forour iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him theiniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet itwas the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,”and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB:“guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issueswith regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song”(as it is often called), one of them being whether the termtranslated “guilt offering” should really be thought ofalong the lines of the guilt offering described in the book ofLeviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditionalChristian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here apicture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning forthe sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on hisservant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to beGod’s very own son, Christ Jesus.
NewTestament
Therelationship between the Testaments.When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should bemade.
First,God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NTconsideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinfuland unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess JesusChrist as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is themeans of averting this wrath.
Second,salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in ChristJesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the sametime, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who“justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom.3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless hisown justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God isboth just and justifier.
Third,as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, soalso in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement.It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. IfJesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it isGod himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement”(Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that hegave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “senthis Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for usall” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not anunwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing ofatonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).
Fourth,the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately,the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessaryatonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goatsto take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).
Portrayalsof Christ’s work of atonement.It has become common of late to refer to the different “images”or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. Thisis understandable on one level, but on another level there issomething misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authorsspeak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear thatthey intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christreally is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins,and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placedon the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection tothe OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.”The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery.In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective,Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice inthe OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the differentportrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some ofthese may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while othersperhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a“window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted thatthe individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in somecases they overlap.
• Ransom.Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransompaid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb.9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in thesepassages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption”in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same wordare also translated “redeem” or “redemption”in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet.1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used inRev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased”people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that ofslaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slavemarket. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic”view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for thepurchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense ofChrist’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom theransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those whoare ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to thelaw.
• Cursebearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the pictureof Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. Thelanguage is especially striking because rather than saying thatChrist bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.”This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully tookinto his own person the curse that was meant for us.
• Penaltybearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayaldepicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of oursins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, becauseChrist has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous andno longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much ofthe argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it alsointersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of thispicture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34;Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understoodby Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “thejust for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as wellas in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sinfor us” so that we might become the “righteousness ofGod.”
• Propitiation.There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or“atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greekverb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. Thisis the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrewverb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about theprecise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, asto whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”)or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avertwrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of“propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is impliedin expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account ofour sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although thespecific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in thosepassages where it is said either that Christ died “for oursins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins”(Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or thathis blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins”(Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).
• Passover.In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb,has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has nottraditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though manyscholars would argue that it was), at the very least we shouldrecognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use ofthe Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. TheGospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in theGospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account ofJesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion wasprecisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John19:14).
• Sacrifice.This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above,but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept inthe NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ isportrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers thesacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). Hecame, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of thesacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, finalsacrifice” within that system, “that he might makeatonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).
Ofcourse, it is not just the death of Christ that secures ourredemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection andheavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regardto the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life,his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him tobe the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration ofGod’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “wasraised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it wasparticularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.
Terminology
TheNT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means“gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greekthe term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Inparticular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of thecitizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city.Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not tothe citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, theywere not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records threeinstances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Themost important background for the Christian use of the term is theLXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundredtimes, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. Whileqahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah,the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering,translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’ssacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, whereqahal is linked with the covenant.
Inthe NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’speople 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although theword occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it isof special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instancesin James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn fromthis usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and theplural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those whoprofess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsiadesignates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28;15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23;Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation(1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
TheNature of the Church
Thenature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning ofone word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a richarray of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are thosemetaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church,five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom ofGod, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and thebody of Christ.
Thepeople of God.Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in thecovenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be mypeople” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer.7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28;Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus,the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras whor*sponded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin restsexclusively in God’s grace.
Tospeak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT andthe NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship betweenthe church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize thematter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the churchand Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuitybetween them.
Continuitybetween the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that thechurch and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuousrelationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel insome sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding toDeut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in thewilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from theintimate association noted earlier existing between the wordsekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified bythe phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewedin some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein theprototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal.4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).
Second,Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OTnames for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact.Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph.2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people”(1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29;Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16;Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “theelect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood”(1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Discontinuitybetween the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totallyidentical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes therelationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological(end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is aprogression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor.5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced bythe fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel,without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter asGentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Althoughthe church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be thepermanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).
Thekingdom of God.Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping ofthe two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete.The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and thesecond aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the ageto come has broken into this age, and now the two existsimultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining therelationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because thechurch also exists in the tension that results from the overlappingof the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as theforeshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition:first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, thechurch is not equal to the kingdom of God.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after theresurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about thechurch. However, there are early signs of the church in the teachingand ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general,Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in thathe gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted thebeginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant.More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in twopassages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesuspromised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition,thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of thechurch overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that thekingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks theintimate association between the church and the kingdom. The secondpassage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlikethe Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimatelyrelated as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does notequate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christianspreached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g.,Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is theinstrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt.16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church becomethe keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
Theeschatological temple of God.Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple inthe future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9;1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he wasgoing to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of thefulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited thechurch, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36).Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit inthe Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor.3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; seealso Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However,that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in thepreceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for thechurch to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fullyaccomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In themeantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform theirsacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb.13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
Thebride of Christ.The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (seeIsa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied toChrist and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, hassacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph.5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is tobe faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia theofficial wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternalunion of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9;21:1–2).
Thebody of Christ.The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to thePauline literature and constitutes one of the most significantconcepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph.4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is todemonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within thechurch, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body ofChrist is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of theend time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage ofthe image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that thechurch, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to gospiritually. It is not yet complete.
Sacraments
Atthe heart of the expression of the church’s faith are thesacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The formersymbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter providesspiritual sustenance for the church.
Baptism.Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Threeobservations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament.First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association ofrepentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek.36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipatedChristian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance inexpectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiahwould exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesusas Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may bean allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes thatlead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practicedbaptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 //Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34;cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor.1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thesepassages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism isintimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the personwith the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates theperson into the community of believers.
Lord’sSupper.The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This ritesymbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as itcelebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblicaldata concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted byChrist (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20;1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of thePassover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introducedtwo changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened breadwith a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; hereplaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood onthe cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early churchpracticed the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunctionwith the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). Atwofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NTauthors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways:participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death ofJesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’sSupper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination pointof the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supperinvolves identification with the body of Christ, the community offaith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).
Worship
Theultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ andin the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). Theearly church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met inhomes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15;Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many JewishChristians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, theestablished time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday,the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Theearly church most probably patterned its order of worship after thesynagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess.1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col.1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col.4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to theneedy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9;James 2:15–17).
Serviceand Organization
Fiveobservations emerge from the NT regarding the service andorganization of the early church. First, the ministry of the churchcenters on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believersby God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good ofothers (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believerpossesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third,it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christmatures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph.4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership inthe NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called“pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28;1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13),there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy”and the “laity” in the church of the first century;rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all thesaints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth,spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).
Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life,wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such asrespiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequatelyencompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.
TheBeginning of Death
Deathis introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing theprohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of goodand evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of thedivine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells thefirst man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you willcertainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a usefulbasis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.
First,as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor thewoman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eatingthe fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblicalnotion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointingto the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation andseparation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed byJesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and byPaul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sinsand transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the commonpunishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cutoff from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen.9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss ofaccess to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first manand woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, buttheir fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and theintimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.
Second,the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, asoriginally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12;6:23; 1Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortalin the same manner as God (cf. 1Tim. 6:16), but rather thatthey were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death butsustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through theprovision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once theywere cut off from the source of life, death ensued.
Theaccount of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us littleabout how death affected animals, since the Bible consistentlypresents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirmshuman ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans andanimals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is notentirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sinfor humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to thefall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortalityprior to the fall.
Deathin the Old Testament
Deathis frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from itsinitial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presentedas that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss.18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the authorof Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines anypossible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). Thetragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, fromGod (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and frompeople. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality andprofundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17;cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present deathmore positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlightthe appalling circ*mstances of the speaker’s life rather thanany blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, seeRev.9:6).
TheOT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a gooddeath as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. SoAbraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17)are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, somepassages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,”suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death,presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead arenever explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death withinlanguage used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).
Althoughthere are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of thedead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show thatburial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23;cf. 1Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriateburial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillbornchild is better off than someone who lives a long life but receivesno burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation ofthose not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16;16:4).
Lifeafter Death in the Old Testament
Beliefin some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of theancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to thestate of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoingexistence that could even surpass what one may have experiencedbefore death (although such an opportunity was a reasonableexpectation only for the upper classes, while the general populationprobably had more modest expectations of the nature of theirexistence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefsdepicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but thevery few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensurethem some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there waslittle hope for any positive experience following death.
TheOT, however, has little to say about the state of those who havedied. The widespread belief in some form of continued existencebeyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in theabsence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probablyassumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death.Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, suchas the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1Sam.28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2Kings2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones(2Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as“gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29;Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead(sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spiritsof the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generallydescribed as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, thereare prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death(e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’sdeath (Ezek. 18:23, 32).
Deathin the New Testament
TheNT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view ofdeath presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence ofand punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity isstated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by thenotion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead intheir sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death,according to Paul, is the last enemy (1Cor. 15:26), and yet todie is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being withChrist, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” thanbeing alive in this body in this world.
Centralto both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death inthe Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’death provides the basis for countering the consequences of theoriginal rebellion against God by the first couple (2Cor.5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itselfdestroyed death (2Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesusoffers—eternal life—is available to the believer in thepresent (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimatelyabolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe inhim will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).
TheNT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the deadfrom the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearlypresented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of theexistence of distinctions among those who have died, such that therich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used inthe LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus isfar off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a dangerin reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflectsomething of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among somein Jesus’ day.
TheNT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev.2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to thestate of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from whichthere will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ willnot experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwellingplace with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).
Traditionally appearing after Matthew, Mark, and Luke in theNT canon, the Gospel of John is also referred to as the FourthGospel. Because of its many unique features, John is often discussedin distinction from the other three Gospels, which are groupedtogether as the Synoptic Gospels.
Authorship
Technically,the Gospel of John is anonymous. The author, however, identifieshimself with the Beloved Disciple (21:24). In light of the nearlyunanimous testimony of the early church that the Fourth Gospel waspenned by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, and that noformidable argument has been set forth against this position, themajority of conservative scholars agree that the Beloved Disciple isJohn the apostle.
Evidencefor apostolic authorship is multifaceted. First, the externalevidence weighs heavily in favor of the traditional view that Johnthe apostle penned this Gospel. There is some evidence that titlepages with an accompanying ascription identifying the author dateback very close to the time of the origin of the Gospels themselves.Such ascriptions may have been necessitated as a means ofdistinguishing the Gospels from one another. With regard to theFourth Gospel, the earliest manuscripts uniformly ascribe it to theapostle John.
Theevidence from the early church fathers also supports the traditionalviewpoint. Ignatius appears to have been familiar with the languageof the Fourth Gospel. Also, the Shepherd of Hermas alludes to it.Justin appears to be the first orthodox writer to quote John (1Apol.61.4–5, quoting from John 3:3–5). Irenaeus is the firstto overtly assert Johannine authorship: “John the disciple ofthe Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel whilehe was resident at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1). Thisposition finds further support in Tertullian and Clement ofAlexandria (c. AD 200). The Muratorian Canon (AD 180–200) tellsus that John was urged by his disciples, and that Andrew had a dreamthat John should write. Eusebius’s silence on the questions ofthe authenticity, authorship, and canonicity of John speaks loudly,since it was his objective to address the doubtful cases. In all,there is unquestioned acceptance by the end of the second centurythat the Fourth Gospel was written by John the apostle.
Second,the internal evidence corresponds with the identification of John theson of Zebedee as the author in that he appears to meet all therequirements for authorship. John was one of the Twelve and, alongwith Peter and James, a member of the inner circle of Jesus’disciples. This close association with Peter makes John the bestcandidate for the Beloved Disciple. Also, the call narrative of1:35–51, when compared with Mark 1:16–20, supports theidentification of the unnamed disciple with John. Several personalallusions in the Fourth Gospel are best accounted for if the authoris John the apostle. For example, in 1:14; 19:35 the author suggeststhat he has personally witnessed Jesus. The author provides detailsthat suggest this Gospel was written by an eyewitness, and some ofthese details serve no purpose except to affirm that an eyewitnesssaw or experienced them. These include a proclivity for specifyingthe time or day of an event (1:19–28, 29, 35, 39, 43; 2:1; 4:6,52; 18:28; 19:14; 20:19); the number of water jars (six) at Cana(2:6); the distance (twenty-five or thirty stadia) that the disciplesrowed (6:19); the number of fish (153) caught (21:11); and thedistance of the boat from land at the postresurrection appearance ofJesus (21:8, 11).
Furthermore,the author of the Fourth Gospel is aware of Jewish customs andhistory as well as the geography of first-century Palestine. This tooaccords with our knowledge of John the apostle. For example, he isaware of customs regarding cleansing (2:6), laws concerning theSabbath (5:10), and the Feast of Tabernacles (7:37). The writer ofthe Fourth Gospel is also familiar with history (the number of yearsspent rebuilding the temple [2:20]), Jewish politics (the attitudetoward Samaritans [4:9]), Jewish authorities (Annas and Caiaphas[18:13]), and the geography of Palestine (the pool at Bethesda withfive porticoes [5:2], the Pool of Siloam [9:7], Sychar [4:5], the twoBethanys [1:28; 11:1, 18; 12:1], Ephraim [11:54]).
Thequestion remains as to why the apostle John would have writtenanonymously and used such a cryptic means of identifying himself as“the beloved disciple” (21:20; NIV: “the disciplewhom Jesus loved”). It is conceivable that John’s readersknew his name, and that in keeping with the Semitic custom ofanonymity, John used this alternative designation. Why, though, in aneffort to humbly remain anonymous, would someone choose a designationthat seemingly connotes superiority?
Inresponse, some have suggested that John may have used the title witha sense of wonder about how Jesus loved him. The stress would then beone of amazement: John, instead of mentioning his own name, drawsattention to what he owes Jesus. This title is also combined withother, more modest titles: “another disciple” (18:15);“the other disciple” (20:2); “the man who saw it”(19:35). Finally, others have noted that the designation “thebeloved disciple” may simply have been a title by which Johnwas known throughout the churches of Asia.
Furthermore,if the apostle John is not the author of the Fourth Gospel, then wemust account for his absence from the narrative. The failure tomention James and John (aside from the somewhat passing reference tothe “sons of Zebedee” [21:2]) is striking. According tothe Synoptic Gospels, these brothers are two of the most prominentdisciples in the ministry of Jesus. If John’s readers werefamiliar with James and John and their general role in the life ofJesus, then by not naming himself, John could keep his own rolesubordinate in the narrative. John, as an eyewitness, needed tomention himself, for doing so would help to establish the historicalcredibility of this Gospel. This designation allowed him to write abiography of Christ and not mention himself by name.
Timeand Place of Writing
Thoughthe conclusion is ultimately uncertain, it is widely believed thatJohn penned the Fourth Gospel from Ephesus somewhat late in the firstcentury (c. AD 85–95). It appears from 21:19, 23 that a measureof time has gone by, and that Peter has already died. It has beenargued that the Gospel of John was written before the destruction ofthe temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 (on the basis of referencessuggesting that the temple is still standing [cf. 5:2]), but thisargument from silence does not necessarily establish the point thatit attempts to prove. Supporting a date late in the first century isthe external evidence. The early church fathers claimed that John waswritten last, at the urging of his disciples, and that he wrote fromEphesus.
Thesuggestion that John was written sometime well into the secondcentury has been rejected by nearly all scholars. The discovery of avery early manuscript, P52 (dated around AD 125), confirms that theFourth Gospel was written and circulating early in the secondcentury. Copies of the Bodmer Papyri P66 and P75 further establishthat the Gospel of John was circulating in Egypt as early as AD 140.
Outline
I.Prologue (1:1–18)
II.Preparation for Jesus’ Ministry (1:19–51)
III.Jesus’ Public Ministry: Signs and Teaching (2:1–12:50)
IV.The Last Supper and Farewell Discourse (13:1–17:26)
V.The Passion and Resurrection Narratives (18:1–21:25)
Purposeand Message
TheGospel of John states its purpose in 20:31: “But these [signs]are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Sonof God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”The Greek text of this verse is relatively ambiguous (something thatwas noticed from a very early date and has resulted in somediscrepancy among the earliest manuscripts). It raises the questionof whether John wrote so that his readers might come to believe orthat they should continue in their belief. A number of leadingscholars have concluded that John was intentionally ambiguous andthat he wrote with both purposes in mind.
TheGospel of John clearly focuses on the person, work, and identity ofJesus Christ. John intends to clarify and affirm exactly who theMessiah/Christ/Son of God really was and why he came. For John, theanswer is evident: Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of God,and he came to be crucified.
Thethesis statement of the Fourth Gospel appears at the close of theopening prologue: “the one and only Son, who is himself God”has “made him [the Father] known” (1:18). Johndemonstrates this by affirming that what God is, the Word is (1:1);what the Father does, the Son does (5:19); the Son and the Father areone (10:30); the Son speaks what the Father has told him (8:28;12:49; 14:10); and the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in theSon (14:10–11). The climactic statement, then, is Jesus’proclamation: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”(14:9).
Severalproposals have set forth various secondary intentions for the Gospelof John. Many of these have some measure of legitimacy, though it isdifficult to establish any of them as forthright in the mind of John.For example, it has been suggested that the Fourth Gospel was writtento combat a growing form of gnosticism. Although this Gospel hastraces of evidence that support this contention, and there is evensome external evidence in its favor, it is difficult to establishthat this was an explicit intention of John. Gnosticism as adeveloped system did not arise until the second century. Others haveargued that this Gospel was written as an anti-Jewish polemic. Aclose reading, however, suggests that this was not one of John’spurposes. Perhaps the most plausible secondary proposition is thatJohn’s Gospel was written to complement the Synoptic Gospels.
Johnand the Synoptics
Therelationship between John and the Synoptics is essential for ourunderstanding of the Fourth Gospel. That John is independent from theSynoptics is evident in that the Fourth Gospel has a detailedknowledge of events beyond those recorded in the Synoptics. Johnknows of lengthy discourses after miracles (e.g., 6:26–58), awedding in Cana (2:1–11), conversations with Nicodemus (3:1–21)and a Samaritan woman (4:7–37), repeated confrontations withthe Jews (e.g., 8:12–59), the raising of Lazarus from death(11:1–44), and more. Nothing in chapters 3–5 isparalleled in the Synoptics; and of the material in chapters 1–5,only the ministry of John the Baptist and the cleansing of the templeare found in the Synoptics. Compared to the Synoptics, John has adistinct vocabulary (e.g., truth, witness, abide, love, believe,light, life).
Alsoin contrast to the Synoptics, John focuses on Jesus’ ministryin Jerusalem, has Jesus beginning his ministry before the arrest ofJohn the Baptist (3:22–24 [cf. Mark 1:14]), shows Jesus’ministry being of longer duration than in the Synoptics, records noparables of Jesus and no transfiguration, and scarcely mentions thekingdom of God (3:3, 5; 18:36). Furthermore, John’s theologyand explicit identification of Jesus with God are unique among theGospels.
Despitethe differences, however, the Gospel of John reflects significantparallels with the Synoptic accounts. John is aware of the Synoptictraditions regarding the Spirit’s anointing (1:32–33),John the Baptist (1:19–34; 3:22–36), the feeding of thefive thousand (6:1–13), and Jesus’ walking on water(6:15–21). Furthermore, the Fourth Gospel seemingly intends toexplain features that are obscure in the Synoptics. For example, whydid the disciples follow Jesus when he came to them and said, “Followme”? John explains that many of them were disciples of John theBaptist, and that they had met Jesus earlier (1:19–51). ThatJesus had an extensive ministry in Judea explains why the Jerusalemauthorities were so angry with Jesus and were plotting to kill himwhen he came into Jerusalem for the Passover. The central charge thatJesus taught against the temple (cf. Mark 14:58; 15:29) is alsoexplained by John.
Inall, it appears that John and his readers were aware of theSynoptics. John may even have been written to complement them and toexplain aspects of the Synoptic accounts that were obscure. Thus, theparenthetical insertions in 3:24 and 11:2 may have been intended forreaders who were familiar with the Gospel of Mark. Mostsignificantly, John complements the Synoptics by presenting thesignificance of the person of Jesus beyond what is found intheSynoptics.
Jesusin the Gospel of John
Themost significant feature of John is its high Christology. Johnintends to specify precisely the person and identity of Christ. Theequating of Jesus with God undergirds the entire Fourth Gospel. In noother Gospel is Jesus so clearly identified as God. The Gospel beginswith the affirmation that the Word was in the beginning with God, and“the Word was God” (1:1). Later, Thomas confesses Jesusas “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
John,however, identifies Jesus with a wide variety of titles anddesignations. He is the Word (1:1, 14), the one and only God (1:18),the one and only Son (3:16, 18), the Son of God (1:34, 49; 11:27;20:31), the Son of Man (3:13–14; 5:19–27), the teacherfrom God (3:2), the prophet (4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17), the Messiah(1:41; 4:29; 11:27; 20:31), the King of Israel (1:49; 6:15; 12:13),the King of the Jews (19:19), the Holy One of God (6:69), the Lamb ofGod (1:29, 36), the coming one (11:27; 12:13), the sent one of God(3:16–17, 34; 5:30; 7:16–18; 10:36), the IAm (seebelow), Paraclete (14:16), rabbi (20:16), Lord (6:68; 20:18; 21:7),and Lord and God (20:28).
Perhapsthe most significant title applied to Jesus is the identification ofhim with the divine name for God: “I Am” (Gk. egōeimi [cf. Exod. 3:14]).John employs this designation for Jesus to buttress his claims thathe can work, speak, and act in the Father’s role. On sevenoccasions, the “I am” is followed by a predicate: breadof life (6:35); light of the world (8:12); gate (10:9); good shepherd(10:11, 14); resurrection and the life (11:25); the way, the truth,and the life (14:6); true vine (15:1, 5).
Johnalso employs the phrase “I am” in an absoluteconstruction (i.e., without a predicate) in parallel to use in theLXX as a title for God. On some of these occasions, John uses theabsolute construction as a common means of identification (18:5–8).Most intriguing, however, is John’s employment of thisdesignation in the extended dialogue with the Jewish authorities(8:24, 28, 58). In 8:24, 28 the sense seems incomplete, and the formis more a title. This becomes explicit only when compared with thefinal and most significant use of this title in 8:58. On thisoccasion, Jesus’ intent is not missed, and the Jews respondwith the desire to stone him for blasphemy (8:59).
TheOld Testament in the Gospel of John
TheGospel of John has only fourteen direct references to the OT, fewerthan any of the Synoptics. Nonetheless, one of the key features ofJohn’s portrait of Jesus is Jesus’ fulfillment of the OTnot just as the Messiah but also in terms of the institutions,symbols, and festivals of Judaism. In Jesus “the old has gone,the new is here” (2Cor. 5:17). Thus, in John’sGospel the old purifications are replaced with the new wine (2:1–11),the old temple with the new temple (2:12–25), the old birthwith the new birth (3:1–21), the old water with the livingwater (4:7–15), and worship in Jerusalem and Gerizim withworship “in the Spirit and in truth” (4:20–24).Often Jesus’ activities are dated in relation to a feast.Throughout chapters 5–10, John affirms that Jesus has fulfilledand replaced the Jewish festivals—Sabbath: related to work(5:1–47); Feast of Passover: bread (6:1–71); Feast ofTabernacles: water and light (7:1–9:41); Feast of Dedication:temple (10:22–39).
Also,John builds upon a typological emphasis of Jesus. He is the truetemple (2:21), the antitype of the bronze serpent (3:14), the truemanna (6:32–35), the true water-giving rock (7:37), and the newTorah (13:34). Thus, the entire Gospel is framed around Jesus’visits to Jerusalem, where John presents Jesus as the fulfillment ofIsrael’s hope and central to the life of the nation.Furthermore, this Gospel is replete with references to Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Despite the relative lack of OT citations,the message of the OT is interwoven into the substructure of theFourth Gospel.
Symbolsand the Gospel of John
Closelyrelated to understanding the Gospel of John and the OT is the mannerin which John utilizes symbols to convey his message. For example,water often signifies life, cleansing, refreshment, renewal, thenewness that Jesus ushers in, and ultimately the life-giving Spirit.Thus, Nicodemus must be reborn in water and the Spirit (3:5). Jesusturns water into wine (2:8) and promises living water to the woman atthe well (4:10).
Johnalso sees in Jesus’ miracles a greater significance thanappears from the physical phenomena. Thus, he uses the designation“signs” (see, e.g., 2:11) to reference the miracles ofJesus. By means of this designation, John focuses on the significanceof the miracle and not merely the power of Jesus. John informs usthat the signs of Jesus are christological; they signify who he is,not merely what he does. For example, from Jesus’ multiplyingof the bread we learn that he is the giver of eternal life and thesource of our sustenance (6:26–27).
Ironyand Misunderstanding in John
Anotherkey to understanding the Gospel of John is found in its use of ironyand misunderstanding. Irony is a literary technique evidenced in Johnin instances in which opponents of Jesus make statements about himthat are derogatory, sarcastic, and so forth and yet are more true ormeaningful than they suppose. John presents such statements butleaves them unanswered, supposing that his audience will see thedeeper truth. For example, many of the Jews missed the very Messiahthey were looking for (1:11, 45; 5:39–40); they claim to knowwhere Jesus is from (7:27), and yet they refuse to accept the truththat he is from God (7:28). The most famous use of irony appears inPilate’s famed “Here is the man!” (19:5).
Misunderstandingsare occasions when Jesus makes a remark that is ambiguous ormetaphorical and his partner in conversation responds by taking theremark literally, thus showing that the spiritual meaning has eludedthat person. John then explains to his readers the true meaning. Johnuses this technique to bring his readers to a greater knowledge ofwho Jesus is: God in flesh. Examples of misunderstandings are foundin 2:19–21; 3:3–5; 4:10–15, 31–34; 6:32–35,51–53; 7:33–36; 8:21–22, 31–35, 56–58;11:11–15, 23–25; 12:32–34; 13:36–38; 14:4–6,7–9; 16:16–19.
Anti-Semitismin John?
Thecontention that John displays an anti-Semitic agenda in which theburden for the crucifixion of Jesus is placed on the Jewish peopleresults from a misreading of the Fourth Gospel. A thorough reading ofJohn confirms that the designation “Jews” often reflectsthe generic term “Israelites.” The term “Jew”is used in a neutral sense in 4:22 (salvation is from the Jews);8:31; 11:45; 12:11 (many Jews believed); and 2:13; 5:1; 6:4 (feast ofthe Jews). When the designation “Jew” appears in anegative sense in John, it refers particularly to the Jewish leadersand authorities (7:13; 9:22; 19:38; 20:19). Consequently, John’suse of the term is not based on an inherent degradation of thepeople, but instead reflects the historical reality of Jesus’confrontation with Jewish authorities.
ThatJohn does not place all the blame on the Jews in an effort toexonerate the Romans is also evident from the fact that Pilate isportrayed as one who disregards justice. He has an innocent manbeaten and crucified (“I find no basis for a charge againsthim” [19:6]). John does not record this cry from the Jewishpeople: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt.27:25 ESV, NRSV). Consequently, the charge of anti-Semitism in theGospel of John is unfounded.
In Christian theology, the Third Person of the Trinity. Theusage derives from the NT, in which the divine Spirit is treated asan independent person who is instrumental in salvation and is worthyof the praise accorded to both the Father and the Son (John 14:16–23;Rom. 8:26–27; 1Pet. 1:2).
OldTestament
Thescarcity of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the OT (only inPs. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11) does not imply lack of interest orimportance. While it should be recognized that in the OT the personof the Holy Spirit receives nothing like the systematic reflectionfound in the NT, when one includes correlative terms, such as “Spiritof God,” “my Spirit,” “wind,” or“breath,” it is apparent that OT writers attributed greatsignificance to God’s Spirit. Thus, the Spirit was at work inthe beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2). Adam and Eve are uniquely givenlife by the breath of God (Gen. 2:7). The Spirit enables the buildingof the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3), gives voice to the message of theprophets (Num. 11:29; cf. 2Pet. 1:21), empowers Israel’sleaders (1Sam. 16:13), and provides access to God’spresence (Ps. 51:11). Yet in all this, the work of the Spirit in theOT is sporadic, occasional, and localized. Thus, the prophets longfor a new age when God’s people will more perfectly enjoy theSpirit’s presence (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; 61:1; Joel 2:28).
NewTestament
TheSpirit in the ministry of Christ.The NT views the OT prophetic hope for the Spirit as fulfilled in andthrough Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18–21). The unique relationshipbetween God’s Holy Spirit and the person and work of Jesusexplains the systemic reflection that the Holy Spirit receives in theNT. This is signaled at the very beginning of Jesus’ life, whenthe Holy Spirit “comes upon” Mary, overshadowing her with“the power of the Most High” (1:35). Similarly, at thestart of Jesus’ public ministry, the Holy Spirit “descendedon him” at baptism (3:22). This anointing by the Spiritinitiates and empowers Jesus’ public ministry, from hispreaching, to his miraculous works, to his perfect obedience (Luke4:14–18; John 3:34; Acts 10:38). Even his sacrificial death isaccomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14).
Significantly,just as the Holy Spirit empowered the life and death of Jesus, so toois the Spirit responsible for his resurrection and characteristic ofhis glorious reign. Death is not a defeat for Jesus: he is“vindicated by the Spirit” (1Tim. 3:16), “appointedthe Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead”(Rom. 1:4; cf. 1Pet. 3:18). Furthermore, at his resurrection,Jesus comes into a new phase of full and perfect possession of theeternal Spirit as the reward for his obedience. So complete is thisunion that Paul at one point claims that “the Lord is theSpirit” (2Cor. 3:17).
TheSpirit in the church and the believer.The church and its members are the immediate beneficiaries ofChrist’s spiritual fullness. Since Jesus is now a “life-givingspirit” through his resurrection and ascension (1Cor.15:45), he is able to fulfill the promise of Spirit baptism (Luke3:16). This baptism takes place in the outpouring of the Spirit atPentecost, which marks the birth of the NT church. The apostles,illuminated by the Holy Spirit, provide true and powerful testimonyabout Jesus (John 16:4–15), testimony that serves as thechurch’s foundation and principal tradition (Eph. 2:20). Thework of the Spirit continues within the church in the postapostolicage, uniting its members in Christ for God’s holy purpose (Eph.2:22).
Thissame outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the salvation of individualbelievers. Believers receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:14). TheSpirit in turn unites them to Christ and all his benefits (Gal. 3:2;Eph. 1:3), including his life (Heb. 4:15–16), suffering (Phil.1:29; 1Pet. 4:14), death (Rom. 6:3), resurrection (Rom. 6:5),justification (Rom. 4:25), and glorious reign in heaven (Phil. 3:20).These benefits, though undoubtedly perfected and consummated only atChrist’s return (Phil. 1:6), are characteristic of believers’present experience, enjoyed now because the Spirit dwells within themas the “firstfruits” of the harvest to come (Rom. 8:23;cf. Gal. 2:19–20). This indwelling of the Spirit results in newbirth and new creation (2Cor. 5:17), a newness identified withthe life that Christ received in his resurrection (Rom. 8:11).
Forthis reason, believers are urged to further the work of the Spirit intheir lives until the bodily resurrection of all God’s people.They are to cultivate the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal.5:22), and they are correspondingly warned not to “grieve theHoly Spirit” (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore, since new life isinitiated by the Spirit (John 3:6–8), Christians are to remainin that Spirit, not turning aside in reliance on vain and uselessprinciples (Gal. 3:1–5). Conversely, they are to be “filledwith the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), putting off the old person andputting on the new (4:22). This filling grounds every aspect of thebeliever’s life, from obedience, to worship, to the hope ofresurrection. The Spirit, in uniting believers to all the riches ofChrist and his resurrection, is therefore central in the work ofsalvation. See also Spirit.
JudgmentDay in the Bible
Thebook of Revelation concludes with a harrowing vision of finaljudgment. On that day, when the God of all creation sits on his greatwhite throne and holds court, the dead will rise and answer for theirdeeds, whether good or bad (20:11–13). The record of eachperson’s conduct appears in books, one of which is the Book ofLife (20:12–13). Anyone whose name does not appear in the Bookof Life is thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).
Theapostle Paul refers to this same event in Acts 17:30–31. Allhuman beings will face their scheduled day in court, as God certifiedby raising Christ from the dead. It will be a day of wrath, amongother things, when God’s righteous anger against sin is fullydisplayed (Rom. 2:5). In the presence of this God, Isaiah proclaimedhimself to be ruined because of his sinfulness before the one who iscalled “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–5). Wetherefore confess with the author of Hebrews, who says, “It is[and will be] a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the livingGod” (Heb. 10:31).
Manyother texts of Scripture forecast the same event: judgment day iscoming, and nothing can stop it. They also describe this day inequally frightening terms, anticipating fire, darkness, and weepingfor some, but everlasting joy and peace for others. Even Christianswill be judged on this day, notwithstanding the promise ofeverlasting life for everyone who believes (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24;Rom. 3:21–24; 8:1–2; 2Cor. 5:21). In Rom. 14:10–12Paul says, “For we will all stand before God’s judgmentseat,” at which time, “each of us will give an account ofourselves to God.” Similarly, in 2Cor. 5:10 Paul warns,“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, sothat each one of us may receive what is due us for the things donewhile in the body, whether good or bad.”
Justificationand Judgment
Inthese texts, an apparent tension exists between the promise ofjustification, upon which all Christian hope stands, and thecertainty of final judgment, including the judgment of believers. Itwill not do simply to downplay the one or the other, as if thebiblical writers had not really intended one or both of them. Thesetexts say what they say, the good news no less plainly than the bad.Yet, closer inspection shows that the tension is merely apparent.
Wemust first recognize that Scripture treats piety as the evidence ofregeneration and saving faith. Jesus says that a “good tree,”which is a genuine disciple, bears good fruit (Matt. 7:17). That is,the observable righteousness of such a disciple will surpass thehypocritical casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Onjudgment day, therefore, no actual conflict will or ever could arisebetween the general tendency of the believer’s conduct and hisor her position in Christ. Over a lifetime, the believer’shabitual behavior will have differed fundamentally, though neversatisfactorily, from that of a lost person. As for unrepentantsinners, they will be sentenced to eternal damnation because of theirlawlessness (Rom. 3:9–19). Their conduct demonstrates that theyhave rejected the gospel and are deserving of wrath (Heb. 2:3). Thislinkage between justification and right conduct accounts for James’spolemical statement: “You see that a person is consideredrighteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).Abraham’s positional righteousness, secured by faith in whatGod would do on his behalf, became publicly evident through hisobedience (James 2:21–22).
Weshould also note the different purpose that God has in judging hischurch. One aspect of it certainly is to grasp the enormity of oursins, so that we might properly acknowledge the depth of his mercy onthat day. But also this judgment will occur in order to mete out thediffering rewards that Scripture anticipates for the people of God.The definitive text in this regard is 1Cor. 3:1–17, whichconnects the believer’s rewards and losses to the quality ofhis or her behavior within the body of Christ. Some are building onChrist, the sure foundation, using the available materials, and theyreceive their proper reward. Others build selfishly on themselves,with the result that they are saved, “though only as oneescaping through the flames” (1Cor. 3:15). In both cases,however, the question seems to be one of greater and lesser reward,as opposed to salvation or damnation. Even in hell itself, variousdegrees of suffering come into play. According to Jesus, one canreceive a heavy or light “beating” for disobedience,based on one’s prior knowledge of the master’s will (Luke12:47–48). Judgment day, therefore, should not frightenChristians. Jesus really did suffer the full measure of God’swrath against our sin. But this day reminds us that we areaccountable for what we do as his disciples, and it motivates theevangelism that we are commanded to practice.
The concept of justice pervades the Bible, especially, thoughnot exclusively, the OT. The key biblical terms that convey thisconcept include mishpat, tsedeq/tsedaqah, yashar in the OT and thedik- word group in the NT (whose noun and verb forms are translatedrespectively as “righteous” and “justify” ortheir respective cognates). The biblical concept of justice is anembodiment of two contemporary concepts: righteousness and justice.The former designates compliance with the divine norm, while thelatter emphasizes conformity to a societal standard of what is rightand equitable. Focusing exclusively on the latter hinders the correctunderstanding of justice in the biblical sense. Additionally, thebiblical understanding of this concept is encumbered by the use ofdiffering English terms to translate the same Hebrew or Greek terms.
Mishpatand Tsedaqah
Mishpatinherently encompasses the idea of judicial activism consisting inthe provision of standard criteria (legislation, instructions,directives) for conduct and adjudication, and/or the actualarbitration between parties with the goal of ascertaining culpabilityor otherwise and administering the requisite sanctions or acquittal.Tsedaqah, on the other hand, emphasizes the established norm of justorder for right conduct both in the larger society and forindividuals. Whereas mishpat emphasizes the action that seeks toestablish or enforce right patterns of behavior for the common good,tsedaqah stresses the practice (or lack thereof) of such a norm insociety, or between individuals, or an individual’s compliancewith such a norm.
Whenused in combination as a hendiadys (or word pair), these two termssignify an inherent requirement for conformity to an established norm(whether in the religious sphere or in civil society) or therequirement of loyalty or right conduct between individuals. To theperson who stands to benefit from this norm, it approximates a right(i.e., a claim). Conversely, implicit duty is placed upon the personwho ensures the conformity to such an established norm. This fact isbetter appreciated when we reckon with the covenantal nature ofrequirements for justice in the ancient world, in which both partieshave both claim and responsibility. Broadly speaking, this conceptalso implies good governance, which accrues order to life and commonbenefits to all members of the community.
Thisidea is exemplified even in passages that do not use this precisephraseology (mishpat utsedaqah). Judah’s widoweddaughter-in-law, Tamar, had an inherent right to be provided with a(kinsman-redeemer) husband to raise up progeny for her deceasedhusband, while Judah had the incumbent duty of giving her in leviratemarriage to his surviving son. When Judah failed to execute his duty,Tamar entrapped him into an incestuous relationship, from which sheconceived. When condemned to die for adultery in a clannish courtsetting, Tamar revealed the identity of her unborn child’sfather, to which Judah responded by saying, “She is morerighteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah”(Gen. 38:26). That is, she acted more in conformity to the norm thanhe did. In another instance, Yahweh, while challenging the Judeansconcerning their loyalty to him in a covenant lawsuit setting, asks,“A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am afather, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is therespect due me?” (Mal. 1:6). It is Yahweh’s right asfather and master to receive honor and respect, while it is theirduty to give him both.
Godas the Source and Model of Justice
Tobe just, then, implies conformity to that which is right—yashar(the standard or norm). In Scripture, this standard is the revealeddivine will and character. Compliance to it is often expressed inbiblical narrative as doing what is “right [or good] in theLord’s sight” (Deut. 6:18; 12:28; 1Kings 14:8;22:43), while its antithesis is doing what is “evil in the eyesof the Lord” (Judg. 2:11; 1Kings 11:6; 14:22) or doingwhat some human figure(s) “saw fit” (Deut. 12:8; Judg.17:6; 21:25).
Therefore,the source of justice is God himself. It flows from his essentialcharacter as one who is both just and righteous, whose actions areflawless, perfect, upright, and just (Deut. 32:4; 1Sam. 12:7;2Sam. 22:31; Job 37:23; Ps. 89:14). God is the righteouslawgiver, hence the one who establishes the norm for right conduct(Deut. 4:4–8; Ps. 19:7–9). He requires justice of all hiscreatures (cf. Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12, 28–29). God alsojudges righteously (Gen. 18:25; 1Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:4, 9; Jer.9:24) and defends and vindicates the weak and oppressed (Deut. 10:18;Ps. 103:6). The responsibility of maintaining justice in the humancommunity, however, he delegates to its leaders, such as civilmagistrates or political officials, and requires them to execute thisresponsibility with integrity, equity, and impartiality (Deut.1:16–17; 16:18–20; Ps. 82:2–4; Prov. 31:8–9;John 7:24; 1Pet. 2:13–14). God’s requirement ofjustice in the human community is not limited to its leaders only; itis incumbent upon everyone therein (Ps. 15:1–5; Mic. 6:8; Zech.7:9; 8:17; Matt. 23:23).
Executingjustice requires doing all that is essential to bring about thedivine order implicit in creation and explicit in revealed truth, toproduce harmony in all relationships in which humankind is involved(divine-human, human-human, and human-nature). This has the twofoldresult of restraining evil and advancing the benefits of just livingwithin the human society. Thus, the fruits of justice are to be seenin all spheres of human life, such as spirituality (2Cor.5:17–21), morality and ethics (Phil. 4:8; Col. 3:5–9;Titus 2:11–13), social justice (Exod. 22:21–24; Isa.56:1; Amos 2:6–7; Ezek. 22:7–29; James 2:1–9), andeconomic justice (Amos 5:11; 8:4–6; James 5:1–6), as wellas in the environment (Deut. 20:19–20; Pss. 96:9–13;104:1–31; Eccles. 2:5–6; Rom. 8:19–22).
Additionally,the outworking of justice produces (re)distribution and retribution.Distribution means that those blessed materially share of theirblessings with those in need (Deut. 15:1–15; Ps. 112:5–9;Prov. 28:27; Isa. 58:1–11; 2Cor. 8–9). Retributionrelates to the vindication and deliverance of the oppressed andjudgment on the wicked (1Sam. 2:7–10; Job 36:5–10;Ps. 72:4; Luke 4:17–20). This is both attested in biblicalIsrael’s experience (Isa. 1:17–20; 5:1–9; Jer.5:26–29; Mic. 2:1–3) and is being anticipated at thefinal judgment (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:1–3; Matt. 25:31–46;2Thess. 1:5–10). The vindicated obtain God’s loveand grace, while the judged receive his justice. Justice and love,therefore, are the two sides of God’s holiness.
Justification is an important topic because of itsrelationship to Christian salvation and sanctification. The word“justification” occurs only five times in the Bible(NIV), but related words comprise significant themes in bothTestaments. Part of the difficulty in the exposition of“justification” is English terminology. English has twoword groups that express the same conceptual range for single wordgroups in Hebrew and Greek. So in addition to words related tojustification, such as “justly,” “just,” andthe very important verb “to justify,” no discussion canavoid the terms “righteous” and “righteousness.”Care must also be exercised in allowing the biblical texts todetermine word meaning, since both “justice” and“righteousness” terminology can have contemporaryconnotations foreign to the biblical texts.
Justificationis often related to a legal setting in both Jewish and Greco-Romancontexts, with its judge, defendant, evidence, criteria forevaluating the evidence, verdicts, and the implications of verdicts.This is a good word picture for justification and is used in theBible itself. As long as the legal picture is extended to everydayaffairs, moral and ethical concerns, and different criteria forevidence evaluation, it is a fine starting point for understandingthe doctrine of justification.
Commonand Extraordinary Justification
Thesalvific importance of justification has greatly shaped theexposition that follows. Justification has been somewhat awkwardlydivided into common and extraordinary justification, with the latterbearing a significant relationship to the doctrine of salvation. Theformer is discussed only briefly in OT and NT paragraphs. In commonjustification, a person’s works or deeds are judged accordingto a standard of righteousness. Righteous deeds are judged and giventhe verdict “righteous.” Unrighteous deeds are judged andgiven the verdict “unrighteous.” Extraordinaryjustification occurs when an unrighteous person or deed is judged andgiven the verdict “righteous” by some supernaturalintervention.
Commonjustification in the OT may be described in various contexts: (1)incomparative or relative righteousness between humans (e.g., Gen.38:26; Ezek. 16:51–52); (2)in specific or concretesituations with God as judge (e.g., 2Chron. 6:23: “Judgebetween your servants, condemning the guilty and bringing down ontheir heads what they have done, and vindicating the innocent bytreating them in accordance with their innocence”; (3)inspecific or concrete situations with a human as judge (e.g., Deut.25:1: “When people have a dispute, they are to take it to courtand the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent andcondemning the guilty”); (4)in giving justice (e.g.,2Sam. 15:4; cf. Ps. 82:3); (5)in proving correct or right(e.g., Ps. 51:4; Isa. 43:9).
Extraordinaryjustification is much rarer in the OT. A possible example is Dan.8:14, where in a vision the sanctuary is desecrated and after a time“will be reconsecrated” or, in other terms, “willbe justified holy.” It seems quite unusual that the unholy “isjustified” as holy. In Isa. 45:25 we find the promise that “inthe Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified” (ESV).Another verse declares that Yahweh’s “righteous servantwill justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isa.53:11). The need for extraordinary justification and the deficiencyof ordinary justification is clear in Ps. 143:1–2: “Lord,hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness andrighteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant intojudgment, for no one living is righteous before you” (cf. Job4:17; 25:4). The last phrase might be translated “no personwill be justified before you” and is cited by the apostle Paulin Gal. 2:16 (cf. Rom. 3:20).
Inthe NT, there are fewer references to common justification than inthe OT and a much greater development of extraordinary justification,predominantly in the Pauline letters (for similar concepts indifferent terms, see, e.g., “kingdom of God” in theSynoptic Gospels or “eternal life” in the Gospel ofJohn). Common justification in the NT may be described in variouscontexts: (1)in a specific situation with a human or God asjudge and a person’s behavior as the object of judgment (e.g.,Luke 16:15; 1Cor. 4:3–4; perhaps Luke 10:29; 18:9–14);(2)when “wisdom is proved right,” meaningvindicated by the results (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35); (3)in therelease from demands no longer binding (Rom. 6:7; cf. 1Cor.6:1); (4)in being proved morally right in fullness (1Tim.3:16; cf. Rom. 3:4).
Pauland Justification
Extraordinaryjustification in the NT is characteristic of the apostle Paul. Luke’sreport of Paul’s synagogue sermon in Pisidian Antioch concludeswith a brief overview of extraordinary justification (Acts 13:38–39).Paul proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through Jesus.Every person trusting in Jesus is being justified “from allthings from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses”(NKJV). The forgiveness of sins leads to the verdict “innocent”even though sinners apart from Christ are guilty before God of theirunrighteous deeds.
InGal. 2:16 the verb “justify” is used three times: (1)“aperson is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in JesusChrist”; (2)“we, too, have put our faith in ChristJesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by theworks of the law”; (3)“by the works of the law noone will be justified.” The statements may be paraphrased inthe active voice (expressing the implied subject) as in thefollowing: (1)God is justifying a person not by works of Mosaiclaw, but by trust in Jesus Christ; (2)God justified us by trustin Christ, not by works of Mosaic law; (3)God will justify noperson by works of Mosaic law. In Gal. 2:16, God is the subject, theagent who justifies (cf. 3:8; Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33). Thebasis of justification is faith in Christ, not works of the Mosaiclaw. The meaning of the verb “justify” may be discernedfrom the context. This justification is related to the gospel (e.g.,Gal. 2:14) and to receiving the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14), and theverdict of “righteous” for the person trusting in Jesus(Gal. 2:21; cf. 3:6, 11; 5:5; 1Cor. 1:30; 2Cor. 5:21).
Justificationand righteousness are important themes in Paul’s letter to theRomans. At the beginning of the letter, Paul declares that he is notashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that bringssalvation to all who believe. In the gospel the righteousness of Godis revealed, a righteousness that is by faith (Rom. 1:16–17).Paul argues in Rom. 1:18–3:20, a section abounding withrighteousness language, that all humanity, Gentile and Jew, is underthe power of sin (3:10), that no one is righteous (e.g., 3:10–18).All are subject to condemnation (i.e., the declaration of “guilty”and “unrighteous” [cf. 5:16]) rather than justification(i.e., the declaration of “innocent” and “righteous”).No human will be justified before God by works of the law; the lawprovides knowledge of sin (3:20).
Thestate resulting from this unrighteousness and sin is God’swrath (e.g., Rom. 1:18). It is into this situation, this sad state ofaffairs where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,that the righteousness of God, God’s saving activity longanticipated in the OT, is revealed in the person and work of JesusChrist (3:21; 10:3). This righteousness is from God (3:22), arighteousness not related to human fulfillment of Mosaic law orrighteousness of one’s own (Rom. 3:21; 9:31–32; 10:4;Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Eph. 2:8–9). This righteousness comes fromGod by trust in Christ (Rom. 3:22; 5:1; 9:30; 10:10; Phil. 3:9). Bytrust in Christ, God justifies each human in his freely given grace,whereby the human is redeemed from unrighteousness and sin (Rom.3:24).
Thedeath of Jesus is the sacrifice of atonement by which forgiveness ofsins is accomplished and made effectual in the human when one trustsin Jesus’ sacrifice (Rom. 3:25). This sacrifice demonstratesGod’s righteousness (3:26) because he justly judges human sinin Jesus. The one who had no sin of his own became sin for us (2Cor.5:21; cf. Rom. 5:6, 8; 1Cor. 15:3). In merciful forbearance,God passes over sins previously committed, delaying the execution ofhis justice, that he might justify the ungodly person who trusts inJesus’ person and work (Rom. 3:26; cf. 4:5). This justificationis of a different nature than ordinary righteousness on the humanlevel or of the kind that can be obtained by observing the Mosaiclaw. In this extraordinary justification, God reckons a humaninnocent of sin and righteous by trust and apart from works of Mosaiclaw (3:28). Both Jew and Gentile are reckoned righteous under thesame condition: trust in Jesus (3:29–30).
Althoughthe revelation of the person and work of Jesus the Messiah wasrelatively new at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Paulemphasizes in Rom. 4 that this idea of justification by trust and notby works goes back to the forefather of the Jews, Abraham. QuotingGen. 15:6, Paul demonstrates from Scripture that trust, not works,was the basis of extraordinary justification: Abraham believes God,and it is credited to him as righteousness. God justifies Abraham(i.e., God credits righteousness to Abraham) on the basis ofAbraham’s trust in God. Paul also cites most of Ps. 32:1–2,from a Davidic psalm, to further demonstrate the consistency ofjustification by faith with previous revelation. In this quotationthe crediting of righteousness apart from works is related to theforgiveness of transgression, where the verdict of the guilty becomes“innocent.” “He was delivered over to death for oursins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).Extraordinary justification of unrighteous sinners leads to thetwofold verdict: innocent and righteous.
Titus3:3–6 expresses the same doctrine of extraordinaryjustification. Humanity is under sin when Jesus appears. God saves inhis mercy through Jesus, not on the basis of righteous human works.This saving activity is equivalent to being justified by Jesus’grace (3:7).
Jamesand Justification
Thereare three references to justification in James 2:14–26, whichappear at first glance to contradict extraordinary justification aspresented by Paul. In support of the claim that faith without deedsis useless (James 2:20), two questions are asked: Was not Abrahamconsidered righteous for what he did, and was not Rahab theprostitute considered righteous for what she did (i.e., justified byworks) (2:21, 25)? James 2:24 rephrases this as a proposition: aperson is justified by what he or she does, not by faith alone. Thecontext of 2:14–26 demonstrates that although the terms“faith,” “works,” and “justification”are the same as Paul’s, they have different meanings for James.Faith appears in this passage as mere knowledge (2:19), without anyimplications for living (2:14–18). For Paul, faith is a radicalcommitment of trust that submits one’s entire life under thelordship of Christ, something much different from the mere beliefportrayed as faith by James. Deeds or works in the James passage arethe concrete manifestations of what one believes (2:18). Works in thePauline justification passages are set in opposition to trust in theperson and work of the Lord Jesus. Outside of the justificationcontext, Paul is an advocate of works properly related to faith,righteousness, and holiness (e.g., Eph. 2:10; 1Thess. 1:3; cf.Rom. 1:5; 6:1–23; 8:4; 12:1–2). Justification is alsodifferent. Pauline justification most commonly relates to theextraordinary justification of declaring unrighteous sinners“innocent” and “righteous” based on trust inChrist. Justification in James has greater ties to commonjustification, focusing on the righteousness of a specific act at aspecific time.
OtherViews on Justification
Shortlyafter the age of the apostles, the doctrine of justification wasdeemphasized in many circles of church life in favor of a moremoralistic system. One group has repeatedly argued for centuries thatjustification infuses righteousness into the believer, and then thebeliever must do good works to complete justification. Thisconception fails to differentiate between sanctification andjustification and also misrepresents justification. In justificationGod declares the believer innocent and righteous, forgiving sin bymeans of Christ’s sacrifice and imputing Christ’srighteousness to the believer. This is not “legal fiction,”since justification has past, present, and future aspects (Rom. 3:30;8:30–34; Gal. 2:16; 5:5). Believers have been, are being, andwill be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. Recently, some haveclaimed that justification is related exclusively to the inclusion ofGentiles into the people of God without “works of the law,”racial and national identity markers (e.g., circumcision or foodlaws). Among the weaknesses of this view, the key one is that bothJew and Gentile are in need of extraordinary justification (Rom. 3:9,19–20, 23–26, 30; 9:30–10:13; Gal. 2:15–3:14).
JudgmentDay in the Bible
Thebook of Revelation concludes with a harrowing vision of finaljudgment. On that day, when the God of all creation sits on his greatwhite throne and holds court, the dead will rise and answer for theirdeeds, whether good or bad (20:11–13). The record of eachperson’s conduct appears in books, one of which is the Book ofLife (20:12–13). Anyone whose name does not appear in the Bookof Life is thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).
Theapostle Paul refers to this same event in Acts 17:30–31. Allhuman beings will face their scheduled day in court, as God certifiedby raising Christ from the dead. It will be a day of wrath, amongother things, when God’s righteous anger against sin is fullydisplayed (Rom. 2:5). In the presence of this God, Isaiah proclaimedhimself to be ruined because of his sinfulness before the one who iscalled “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–5). Wetherefore confess with the author of Hebrews, who says, “It is[and will be] a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the livingGod” (Heb. 10:31).
Manyother texts of Scripture forecast the same event: judgment day iscoming, and nothing can stop it. They also describe this day inequally frightening terms, anticipating fire, darkness, and weepingfor some, but everlasting joy and peace for others. Even Christianswill be judged on this day, notwithstanding the promise ofeverlasting life for everyone who believes (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24;Rom. 3:21–24; 8:1–2; 2Cor. 5:21). In Rom. 14:10–12Paul says, “For we will all stand before God’s judgmentseat,” at which time, “each of us will give an account ofourselves to God.” Similarly, in 2Cor. 5:10 Paul warns,“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, sothat each one of us may receive what is due us for the things donewhile in the body, whether good or bad.”
Justificationand Judgment
Inthese texts, an apparent tension exists between the promise ofjustification, upon which all Christian hope stands, and thecertainty of final judgment, including the judgment of believers. Itwill not do simply to downplay the one or the other, as if thebiblical writers had not really intended one or both of them. Thesetexts say what they say, the good news no less plainly than the bad.Yet, closer inspection shows that the tension is merely apparent.
Wemust first recognize that Scripture treats piety as the evidence ofregeneration and saving faith. Jesus says that a “good tree,”which is a genuine disciple, bears good fruit (Matt. 7:17). That is,the observable righteousness of such a disciple will surpass thehypocritical casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Onjudgment day, therefore, no actual conflict will or ever could arisebetween the general tendency of the believer’s conduct and hisor her position in Christ. Over a lifetime, the believer’shabitual behavior will have differed fundamentally, though neversatisfactorily, from that of a lost person. As for unrepentantsinners, they will be sentenced to eternal damnation because of theirlawlessness (Rom. 3:9–19). Their conduct demonstrates that theyhave rejected the gospel and are deserving of wrath (Heb. 2:3). Thislinkage between justification and right conduct accounts for James’spolemical statement: “You see that a person is consideredrighteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).Abraham’s positional righteousness, secured by faith in whatGod would do on his behalf, became publicly evident through hisobedience (James 2:21–22).
Weshould also note the different purpose that God has in judging hischurch. One aspect of it certainly is to grasp the enormity of oursins, so that we might properly acknowledge the depth of his mercy onthat day. But also this judgment will occur in order to mete out thediffering rewards that Scripture anticipates for the people of God.The definitive text in this regard is 1Cor. 3:1–17, whichconnects the believer’s rewards and losses to the quality ofhis or her behavior within the body of Christ. Some are building onChrist, the sure foundation, using the available materials, and theyreceive their proper reward. Others build selfishly on themselves,with the result that they are saved, “though only as oneescaping through the flames” (1Cor. 3:15). In both cases,however, the question seems to be one of greater and lesser reward,as opposed to salvation or damnation. Even in hell itself, variousdegrees of suffering come into play. According to Jesus, one canreceive a heavy or light “beating” for disobedience,based on one’s prior knowledge of the master’s will (Luke12:47–48). Judgment day, therefore, should not frightenChristians. Jesus really did suffer the full measure of God’swrath against our sin. But this day reminds us that we areaccountable for what we do as his disciples, and it motivates theevangelism that we are commanded to practice.
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 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 word “peace” in both the OT (shalom)and the NT (eirēnē) primarily describes something sound andcomplete. It was a common form of greeting in both Testaments, andmany word cognates from shalom are still in use among speakers ofSemitic languages as daily greetings. Following the Hellenisticconvention of letter writing, but with heightened appreciation forits distinctively Christian meaning, almost all letters in the NTinclude “peace” in their beginning or end sections.
Theconcept of peace in the Bible, however, goes far beyond the commonlyheld notions of peace as the absence of conflict and the existence ofcooperation between parties. The Bible presents peace as the state ofcompletion of God’s plan, fulfillment of his promise for hispeople on earth. Although peace among individuals, people groups, andnations is not absent from the biblical concept, a clear emphasis islaid on peace between humans and God. In fact, attaining peace on anindividual level is tied more closely to one’s relationshipwith God than to one’s inner psychological state.
OldTestament.The biblical worldview maintains that this world is a broken andflawed place, a state fallen from shalom, which must be reinstated tosecure peace. In the OT, the primary context in which peace isreinstated is the sacrificial system. The “peace offering”(shelamim; NIV: “fellowship offering”) requires animalslaughter and shedding of blood. Insomuch as the sacrifice of animalsis painful and costly, so is the brokenness of the properrelationship between sinful humans and the holy God.
Anotherimportant dimension of restoring peace is through the coming Messiah.That the divinely appointed Messiah would someday come and institutepeace in this troubled world is found in many OT prophets and isparticularly vital to the theology of Isaiah. With much symbolicpower, the messianic epithet in Isa. 9:6 ends with the “Princeof Peace.” The promise that this messianic king will establishpeace on earth was a centerpiece of the hope that Israel held throughcountless crises. In one of the most passionate and powerful passagesin the OT, Isa.53 says that a figure, often called theSuffering Servant, will emerge to take the sin and guilt of God’speople upon himself and bring peace to them (vv. 5–6).
NewTestament.For Christians, all these prophecies point to the person and officeof Jesus Christ. Significant in their eschatological overtones, bothZechariah and Simeon mention peace in their pronouncements that theanticipated coming of the Messiah had just occurred right in theirview (Luke 1:79; 2:29). At Jesus’ birth, the angels proclaimthe coming of the Prince of Peace (Luke 2:14). This resonates wellwith the assertion that Christ is our peace (Eph. 2:14–15).
Itis important that the peace mediated by sacrifices in the OT isdirectly dispensed by Jesus in the Gospels, as in healing the sickand comforting the downtrodden. He even commands peace over naturaldisturbances (a storm). Jesus specifically indicates that he willgive peace to those who follow him. He greets his disciples byinvoking peace (“Peace to you”), echoing the Jewishcustom at that time, but certainly with a far greater and morepowerful reality in mind. In the end, however, the price of truepeace was the life of Christ. The peace between God and humans wasshattered due to rebellion on the part of humans and the ensuingdivine wrath. Since the penalty of sin and separation from God isdeath (Rom. 6:23), mending the broken relationship would be verycostly. In some of the most theologically charged passages (Rom.5:8–11; 2Cor. 5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22; Eph.2:14–17), Paul argues that God, who was the offended party inthis breach of relationship, took the initiative to restore therelationship by, shockingly enough, giving up his Son as the peaceoffering. Thus, the gospel ministry into which Paul and all disciplesare called is the ministry of reconciliation—restoring peace.
The“theology of peace” explored above has immenseimplications for Christian life. In some real sense, peace is thecapstone of the rich blessings bestowed on the believer. Peace is adivine gift (John 14:27; 16:33; Rom. 5:1). It is God’s answerto prayer (Phil. 4:7). What armors Christians is the gospel of peace(Eph. 6:15). God is a God of peace (1Thess. 5:23), and Christis our peace (Eph. 2:14–15). Peace is what Christ left for hisdisciples (John 14:27; 16:33).
In the early church, preaching often took place in amissionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive varietyof words is used to describe preaching tounbelievers, including the following: “evangelize”(euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce”(anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō[Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8,26]). Preachingto believers also took place, in a worship context. This articlehighlights the latter context.
Influenceson Preaching
Fromits inception, a core component of Christian worship was the publicproclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preachingtook in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seemmost influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, thepractices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Romanrhetoric.
Prophesying.The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be anearly form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking inthe church in Corinth (1Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was thatform of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, wasshared and the church was edified (1Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1,3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship communitytested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1Cor.14:29; cf. 1Thess. 5:19–22; 1John 4:1–3).
Acouple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was moreclosely related to preachingthan to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend theformer but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, thefunction of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1Cor.14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’smost comprehensiveterm for public proclamation (e.g., 1Thess. 2:3–4). Thatis why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in theprocess of prophesying (1Cor. 14:29–31). The practice ofprophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.
Synagogue.Another element influencing early Christian preaching was thesynagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preachingflowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In thesynagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed bycommentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).
Thesetwo components—prophecy and the reading and exposition ofScripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencingthe shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remainsuncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices inChristian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue,took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adoptedit into the context of worship in house churches, along with theJewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesyingmerged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture tocreate a more systematic form of proclamation.
Theexposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging thevalidity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria forverifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone;it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20,21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrinesof the church (1Cor. 14:29, 37; 1John 4:1–3).
Greco-Romanrhetoric.A third component influencing early Christian preaching was theclassical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings ofrhetoric saturatedthe culture and education of the day.However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christianculture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiaritywith Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that itsinfluence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.
Sermonsand Their Content
TheNT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a publicworship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon tothe elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preachingbecause it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teachingin his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’sletters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. Hisletters have an oral quality about them and were read in theassemblies (Col. 4:16; 1Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’sletters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.
Anotherimportant issue related to early Christian preaching involves thecontent of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction shouldbe made between kerygma and didachē. C.H. Dodd hasdefinedearly Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The termhe uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was anevangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed tonon-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was anethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians.However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between thetwo. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal(paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1Thess. 2:2–3 with2Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce thegood news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate thatgood news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachēembodied the content of early Christian preaching.
In the early church, preaching often took place in amissionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive varietyof words is used to describe preaching tounbelievers, including the following: “evangelize”(euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce”(anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō[Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8,26]). Preachingto believers also took place, in a worship context. This articlehighlights the latter context.
Influenceson Preaching
Fromits inception, a core component of Christian worship was the publicproclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preachingtook in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seemmost influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, thepractices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Romanrhetoric.
Prophesying.The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be anearly form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking inthe church in Corinth (1Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was thatform of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, wasshared and the church was edified (1Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1,3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship communitytested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1Cor.14:29; cf. 1Thess. 5:19–22; 1John 4:1–3).
Acouple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was moreclosely related to preachingthan to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend theformer but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, thefunction of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1Cor.14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’smost comprehensiveterm for public proclamation (e.g., 1Thess. 2:3–4). Thatis why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in theprocess of prophesying (1Cor. 14:29–31). The practice ofprophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.
Synagogue.Another element influencing early Christian preaching was thesynagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preachingflowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In thesynagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed bycommentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).
Thesetwo components—prophecy and the reading and exposition ofScripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencingthe shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remainsuncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices inChristian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue,took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adoptedit into the context of worship in house churches, along with theJewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesyingmerged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture tocreate a more systematic form of proclamation.
Theexposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging thevalidity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria forverifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone;it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20,21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrinesof the church (1Cor. 14:29, 37; 1John 4:1–3).
Greco-Romanrhetoric.A third component influencing early Christian preaching was theclassical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings ofrhetoric saturatedthe culture and education of the day.However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christianculture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiaritywith Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that itsinfluence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.
Sermonsand Their Content
TheNT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a publicworship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon tothe elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preachingbecause it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teachingin his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’sletters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. Hisletters have an oral quality about them and were read in theassemblies (Col. 4:16; 1Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’sletters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.
Anotherimportant issue related to early Christian preaching involves thecontent of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction shouldbe made between kerygma and didachē. C.H. Dodd hasdefinedearly Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The termhe uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was anevangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed tonon-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was anethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians.However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between thetwo. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal(paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1Thess. 2:2–3 with2Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce thegood news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate thatgood news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachēembodied the content of early Christian preaching.
In the early church, preaching often took place in amissionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive varietyof words is used to describe preaching tounbelievers, including the following: “evangelize”(euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce”(anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō[Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8,26]). Preachingto believers also took place, in a worship context. This articlehighlights the latter context.
Influenceson Preaching
Fromits inception, a core component of Christian worship was the publicproclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preachingtook in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seemmost influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, thepractices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Romanrhetoric.
Prophesying.The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be anearly form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking inthe church in Corinth (1Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was thatform of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, wasshared and the church was edified (1Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1,3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship communitytested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1Cor.14:29; cf. 1Thess. 5:19–22; 1John 4:1–3).
Acouple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was moreclosely related to preachingthan to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend theformer but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, thefunction of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1Cor.14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’smost comprehensiveterm for public proclamation (e.g., 1Thess. 2:3–4). Thatis why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in theprocess of prophesying (1Cor. 14:29–31). The practice ofprophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.
Synagogue.Another element influencing early Christian preaching was thesynagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preachingflowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In thesynagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed bycommentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).
Thesetwo components—prophecy and the reading and exposition ofScripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencingthe shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remainsuncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices inChristian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue,took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adoptedit into the context of worship in house churches, along with theJewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesyingmerged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture tocreate a more systematic form of proclamation.
Theexposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging thevalidity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria forverifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone;it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20,21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrinesof the church (1Cor. 14:29, 37; 1John 4:1–3).
Greco-Romanrhetoric.A third component influencing early Christian preaching was theclassical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings ofrhetoric saturatedthe culture and education of the day.However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christianculture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiaritywith Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that itsinfluence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.
Sermonsand Their Content
TheNT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a publicworship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon tothe elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preachingbecause it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teachingin his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’sletters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. Hisletters have an oral quality about them and were read in theassemblies (Col. 4:16; 1Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’sletters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.
Anotherimportant issue related to early Christian preaching involves thecontent of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction shouldbe made between kerygma and didachē. C.H. Dodd hasdefinedearly Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The termhe uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was anevangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed tonon-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was anethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians.However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between thetwo. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal(paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1Thess. 2:2–3 with2Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce thegood news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate thatgood news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachēembodied the content of early Christian preaching.
In the most basic sense, regeneration refers to God givingnew life to someone or something. Although the word “regeneration”does not appear in the NIV, the concept is abundantly present in avariety of terms and images, especially those of new birth, new life,new self, new heart, and new creation. The biblical concept ofregeneration is applied to both individuals and creation.
Individuals.Becauseof Adam’s rebellion in the garden, humanity plunged intospiritual death (Rom. 5:12–14). Nothing short of God impartingnew life to a person can overcome this condition. The classicexpression of this truth is found in Jesus’ conversation withNicodemus (John 3:1–21). According to Jesus, entering thekingdom of God requires being born again, which he further explainsas being “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3–5).Jesus’ description taps into the language of Ezek. 36:25–27,where God promises to sprinkle clean water on his people and put hisSpirit within them.
Paulalso attributes regeneration to the work of the Spirit when he saysthat God “saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewalby the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through JesusChrist our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, wemight become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus3:5–7). The renewing work of the Spirit is the initial aspectof a person’s experience of salvation, but it is closelyconnected with several other aspects of God’s work in thebeliever, such as justification, inheritance, and eternal life. Thetransformation that regeneration begins is so profound that Paul canrefer to it as an act of “new creation” in which a personwho experiences it is, in a very real sense, an entirely new person(2Cor. 5:17).
Inaddition to making a person spiritually alive, God’s act ofregeneration places within the believer a new disposition ororientation toward faith in Christ and obedience to him. Those whoare born of God believe that Jesus is the Christ (1John 5:1),love God and others (4:7–11), and do not continue in sin (3:9).God makes sinners alive not only to show the riches of his grace(Eph. 2:4–7), but also so that they “do good works, whichGod prepared in advance for us to do” (2:10).
Creation.God’swork of regeneration extends beyond the individual to the entirecreation. Jesus refers to the consummation of God’s plans as“the renewal [palingenesia, ‘regeneration’] of allthings” (Matt. 19:28). Because of Adam’s sin, creationwas placed under a curse (Gen. 3:17–19). To this day, creationgroans under that curse (Rom. 8:19–22). But in the OT, Godpromised to renew the created order (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). The deathand resurrection of Jesus are the initial fulfillment of this cosmicregeneration (Matt. 27:51–53; 1Cor. 15:20–23), butthe completion awaits the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22).
Theregeneration of the individual and creation are inseparable. Godimparts new spiritual life to his chosen people so that they respondin faith and obedience to him. The same regenerating power thatbrings the believer alive will one day renew all creation to make asuitable place for God’s regenerate people to dwell. See alsoNew Birth.
The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OTsuffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev.26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25;cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by whichblessing comes to humanity.
TheBible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17;6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18;1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assumethat he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4,20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in thefinal chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friendsfor their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writermakes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness.Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume thatblindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesusrejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3,6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
Theprayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal andthirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within thelaments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, makerequests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Whyhave you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints againstGod (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“Youhave made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemiesmock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm andnot a man” [22:6]).
TheNT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in theOT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3;26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps.22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presentedas the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation,God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8;Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the pricefor sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set freefrom sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18).(3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom.8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet.2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13),and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to sufferas his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provideshope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil.3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev.21:4).
Thereare many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19;16:22–24; 18:17; 2Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb.10:32; 1Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’splan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1Thess. 3:2–4) and ispart of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22;Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1Pet. 2:21; 4:12).
TheNT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it hasbecome part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering ofbelievers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel(Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11;6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16;2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor.1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb.10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God(Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), andthe crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of thedevelopment toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor.4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Sufferingis associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal(2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness,sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10);comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8);blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor.4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christiansuffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character andhope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity andcompleteness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentarywhen compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom.8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7;4:12–13).
Throughoutthe Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OTlaw provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged,and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10,35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesusregularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3;19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom.12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom.12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visitprisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
Showing
1
to
50
of306
results
1. Toot Your Horn
Illustration
After a performance in London, Lawrence Olivier said to Louis Armstrong, "If there were any anti-American feelings brought into this hall tonight, you and your horn blew them away." Saint Paul said it in 2 Corinthians 5:20, "So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us."
2. True Conversion
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
Paul's testimony is repeated over and over again as persons respond in faith to God's gift of Christ, as they are given His Spirit and become new creations. I heard of such a miracle recently. The American Red Cross was gathering supplies, medicine, clothing, food and the like for the suffering people of Biafra. Inside one of the boxes that showed up at the collecting depot one day was a letter. It said, "We have recently been converted and because of our conversion we want to try to help. We won't ever need these again. Can you use them for something?" Inside the box were several Ku Klux Klan sheets. The sheets were cut down to strips and eventually used to bandage the wounds of black persons in Africa.
It could hardly be more dramatic-from symbols of hatred to bandages of love because of the new creation. Nothing else matters, says Paul.
3. Reconciliation and Communication
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
A husband and wife were having some problems at home. They had argued and now they were giving each other the silent treatment. It lasted all weekend long, it was miserable. On Monday, the husband had an important appointment and had to be at the airport on time to catch a flight. However, he didn't want to be the first to break the silence. He was just too stubborn to do that. But he needed his wife's help. So, he finally wrote on a piece of paper, "Please wake me up at 5.00 a.m." The next morning the man woke up, looked at the clock and discovered it was 9.00 a.m. He completely missed his flight. He was furious. And he was about the hunt his wife down and read her the riot act for not waking him up. But then he noticed a piece of paper on the bed. There, in his wife's handwriting was written: "It is 5.00 A.M., wake up!"
What can you say? This couple had some serious problems, didn't they? They needed help. But what they needed most was reconciliation. And that is exactly what we all need.
4. Broken Love
Illustration
Brett Blair
Keith Hernandez is one of the best baseball players in history. He is a lifetime .300 hitter who has won numerous Golden Glove awards for excellence in fielding. He's won a batting championship for having the highest average, the Most Valuable Player award in his league, and even the World Series. Yet with all his accomplishments, he has missed out on something crucially important to him -- his father's acceptance and recognition that what he has accomplished is valuable. In aninterview he was asked about the tension between he and his dad. Hernandez said that his conversations go a lot like this: "Dad, I have a lifetime 300 batting average. What more do you want?"His fatherresponds, 'Keith,someday you're going to look back and say, 'I could have done more.'"
Imagine the hurt and anger that must build up. The bitterness and loneliness. Not inKeith but inhis dad. That's what you learn as you grow older, at least you hope that children, as they grow,can learn that. That this kind of broken love is not personal, though it feels that way for much of our young life, but it's not. We know it's not. As we get older, we see the damage that existsin the lives of the people we love. And that's where Christ comes in, repairing the past, healing hard hearts, and givingstrength to reach beyond the pain, to the person who perhaps needs more love than we do. Sometimes that might even be, our very ownfathers.
5. Meet in the Middle
Illustration
Tim Kimmel
Shortly after the turn of the century, Japan invaded, conquered, and occupied Korea. Of all of their oppressors, Japan was the most ruthless. They overwhelmed the Koreans with a brutality that would sicken the strongest of stomachs. Their crimes against women and children were inhuman. Many Koreans live today with the physical and emotional scars from the Japanese occupation.
One group singled out for concentrated oppression was the Christians. When the Japanese army overpowered Korea one of the first things they did was board up the evangelical churches and eject most foreign missionaries. It has always fascinated me how people fail to learn from history. Conquering nations have consistently felt that shutting up churches would shut down Christianity. It didn't work in Rome when the church was established, and it hasn't worked since. Yet somehow the Japanese thought they would have a different success record.
The conquerors started by refusing to allow churches to meet and jailing many of the key Christian spokesmen. The oppression intensified as the Japanese military increased its profile in the South Pacific. The "Land of the Rising Sum" spread its influence through a reign of savage brutality. Anguish filled the hearts of the oppressed and kindled hatred deep in their souls.
One pastor persistently entreated his local Japanese police chief for permission to meet for services. His nagging was finally accommodated, and the police chief offered to unlock his church ... for one meeting. It didn't take long for word to travel. Committed Christians starving for an opportunity for unhindered worship quickly made their plans. Long before dawn on that promised Sunday, Korean families throughout a wide area made their way to the church. They passed the staring eyes of their Japanese captors, but nothing was going to steal their joy. As they closed the doors behind them they shut out the cares of oppression and shut in a burning spirit anxious to glorify their Lord.
The Korean church has always had a reputation as a singing church. Their voices of praise could not be concealed inside the little wooden frame sanctuary. Song after song rang through the open windows into the bright Sunday morning. For a handful of peasants listening nearby, the last two songs this congregation sang seemed suspended in time. It was during a stanza of "Nearer My God to Thee" that the Japanese police chief waiting outside gave the orders. The people toward the back of the church could hear them when they barricaded the doors, but no one realized that they had doused the church with kerosene until they smelled the smoke. The dried wooden skin of the small church quickly ignited. Fumes filled the structure as tongues of flame began to lick the baseboard on the interior walls. There was an immediate rush for the windows. But momentary hope recoiled in horror as the men climbing out the windows came crashing back in their bodies ripped by a hail of bullets.
The good pastor knew it was the end. With a calm that comes from confidence, he led his congregation in a hymn whose words served as a fitting farewell to earth and a loving salutation to heaven. The first few words were all the prompting the terrified worshipers needed. With smoke burning their eyes, they instantly joined as one to sing their hope and leave their legacy. Their song became a serenade to the horrified and helpless witnesses outside. Their words also tugged at the hearts of the cruel men who oversaw this flaming execution of the innocent.
Alas! and did my Savior bleed?
and did my Sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
for such a worm as I?
Just before the roof collapsed they sang the last verse,
their words an eternal testimony to their faith.
But drops of grief can ne'er repay
the debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give myself away
'Tis all that I can do!
At the cross, at the cross
Where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day.
The strains of music and wails of children were lost in a roar of flames. The elements that once formed bone and flesh mixed with the smoke and dissipated into the air. The bodies that once housed life fused with the charred rubble of a building that once housed a church. But the souls who left singing finished their chorus in the throne room of God. Clearing the incinerated remains was the easy part. Erasing the hate would take decades. For some of the relatives of the victims, this carnage was too much. Evil had stooped to a new low, and there seemed to be no way to curb their bitter loathing of the Japanese.
In the decades that followed, that bitterness was passed on to a new generation. The Japanese, although conquered, remained a hated enemy. The monument the Koreans built at the location of the fire not only memorialized the people who died, but stood as a mute reminder of their pain.
Inner rest? How could rest coexist with a bitterness deep as marrow in the bones? Suffering, of course, is a part of life. People hurt people. Almost all of us have experienced it at some time. Maybe you felt it when you came home to find that your spouse had abandoned you, or when your integrity was destroyed by a series of well-timed lies, or when your company was bled dry by a partner. It kills you inside. Bitterness clamps down on your soul like iron shackles.
The Korean people who found it too hard to forgive could not enjoy the "peace that passes all understanding." Hatred choked their joy.
It wasn't until 1972 that any hope came. A group of Japanese pastors traveling through Korea came upon the memorial. When they read the details of the tragedy and the names of the spiritual brothers and sisters who had perished, they were overcome with shame. Their country had sinned, and even though none of them were personally involved (some were not even born at the time of the tragedy), they still felt a national guilt that could not be excused. They returned to Japan committed to right a wrong. There was an immediate outpouring of love from their fellow believers. They raised ten million yen ($25,000). The money was transferred through proper channels and a beautiful white church building was erected on the sight of the tragedy. When the dedication service for the new building was held, a delegation from Japan joined the relatives and special guests.
Although their generosity was acknowledged and their attempts at making peace appreciated, the memories were still there. Hatred preserves pain. It keeps the wounds open and the hurts fresh. The Koreans' bitterness had festered for decades. Christian brothers or not, these Japanese were descendants of a ruthless enemy. The speeches were made, the details of the tragedy recalled, and the names of the dead honored. It was time to bring the service to a close. Someone in charge of the agenda thought it would be appropriate to conclude with the same two songs that were sung the day the church was burned. The song leader began the words to "Nearer My God to Thee."
But something remarkable happened as the voices mingled on the familiar melody. As the memories of the past mixed with the truth of the song, resistance started to melt. The inspiration that gave hope to a doomed collection of churchgoers in a past generation gave hope once more. The song leader closed the service with the hymn "At the Cross." The normally stoic Japanese could not contain themselves. The tears that began to fill their eyes during the song suddenly gushed from deep inside. They turned to their Korean spiritual relatives and begged them to forgive. The guarded, calloused hearts of the Koreans were not quick to surrender. But the love of the Japanese believers not intimidated by decades of hatred tore at the Koreans' emotions.
At the cross, at the cross
Where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away ...
One Korean turned toward a Japanese brother. Then another. And then the floodgates holding back a wave of emotion let go. The Koreans met their new Japanese friends in the middle. They clung to each other and wept. Japanese tears of repentance and Korean tears of forgiveness intermingled to bathe the site of an old nightmare. Heaven had sent the gift of reconciliation to a little white church in Korea.
6. Speaking for the Lord
Illustration
James Packer
Paul considered himself Christ's ambassador. What is an ambassador? He is an authorized representative of a sovereign. He speaks not in his own name but on behalf of the ruler whose deputy he is, and his whole duty and responsibility is to interpret that ruler's mind faithfully to those to whom he is sent.
Paul used this "ambassador" image twice both in connection with his evangelistic work. Pray for me, he wrote from prison, "that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak" (Eph. 6:18-20). He wrote also that God "gave us the ministry of reconciliation...So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
Paul called himself an ambassador because he knew that when he proclaimed the gospel facts and promises and urged sinners to receive the reconciliation effected at Calvary, he was declaring Christ's message to the world. The figure of ambassadorship highlights the authority Paul had, as representing his Lord, as long as he remained faithful to the terms of his commission and said neither less nor more than he had been given to say.
7. A Higher Value than Freedom
Illustration
Johnny Dean
If there's one thing we Americans value above everything else, it is freedom. We cherish, guard and exercise our freedom, and woe be unto those who threaten it in any way. We're even willing to go to war to defend freedom, whether it's ours or someone else's. We are the world's self-appointed watchdogs of freedom.
But Jesus says there's a higher value than freedom. The first words the writer of the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus speak are not about freedom, but about obedience to the will of God. That's what righteousness is all about, according to the gospel writer. Matthew uses the word righteousness seven times in his story of the life of Jesus, always connecting righteousness with being obedient to the will of God.
When Jesus comes to John the Baptist to be baptized in the Jordan, John protests. "It really should be the other way around here. You should be baptizing me. Why are you doing this?" And Jesus replies, "Just do it, John; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."
8. A Higher Value than Freedom
Illustration
Johnny Dean
If there’s one thing we Americans value above everything else, it is freedom. We cherish, guard and exercise our freedom, and woe be unto those who threaten it in any way. We’re even willing to go to war to defend freedom, whether it’s ours or someone else’s. We are the world’s self-appointed watchdogs of freedom.
But Jesus says there’s a higher value than freedom. The first words the writer of the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus speak are not about freedom, but about obedience to the will of God. That’s what righteousness is all about, according to the gospel writer. Matthew uses the word righteousness seven times in his story of the life of Jesus, always connecting righteousness with being obedient to the will of God.
When Jesus comes to John the Baptist to be baptized in the Jordan, John protests. "It really should be the other way around here. You should be baptizing me. Why are you doing this?" And Jesus replies, "Just do it, John; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."
9. A Job and A Ministry
Illustration
Michael D. Powell
Do you have a job in this church and this community . . . or do you have a ministry? There is a difference!
- If you are doing it because no one else will, it's a job. If you're doing it to serve the Lord, it's a ministry.
- If you're doing it just well enough to get by, it's a job. If you're doing it to the best of your ability, it's a ministry.
- If you'll do it only so long as it doesn't interfere with other activities, it's a job. If you're committed to staying with it even when it means letting go of other things, it's a ministry.
- If you quit because no one praised you or thanked you, it was a job. If you stay with it even though no one seems to notice, it's a ministry.
- If you do it because someone else said that it needs to be done, it's a job. If you are doing it because you are convinced it needs to be done, it's a ministry.
- It's hard to get excited about a job. It's almost impossible not to get excited about a ministry.
- If your concern is success, it's a job. If your concern is faithfulness, it's a ministry.
- People may say "well done" when you do your job. The Lord will say "well done" when you complete your ministry.
- An average church is filled with people doing jobs. A great church is filled with people involved in ministry!
- If God calls you to a ministry, for heaven's sake (literally) don't treat it like a job. If you have a job in the church, give it up and find a ministry! God doesn't want us feeling stuck in a job, but excited, fulfilled, and faithful in a specific ministry.
May God bless and empower us as disciples of Jesus Christ, called to be in the ministry of this church and community. Amen.
10. Basic Ministry
Illustration
Warren and David Wiersbe
Ten Basic Statements about ministry:
- The foundation of ministry is character.
- The nature of ministry is service.
- The motive for ministry is love.
- The measure of ministry is sacrifice.
- The authority of ministry is submission.
- The purpose of ministry is the glory of God.
- The tools of ministry are the Word and prayer.
- The privilege of ministry is growth.
- The power of ministry is the Holy Spirit.
- The model for ministry is Jesus Christ
11. Who Is a Missionary?
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
For a helpful look at what or who a missionary is or should be, I recommend A Hitchhiker's Guide to Missions by Ada Lum (InterVarsity Press, 1984). Lum gives some helpful definitions and analysis of just what the missionary enterprise is all about. "A missionary is a prepared disciple whom God sends into the world with His resources to make disciples for His kingdom." She suggests six biblical images:
1. A Witness—Acts 1:8; Isaiah 43:10-12
2. An Evangelist—Luke 2:10-11; Acts 11:19-21
3. A Pioneer—Hebrews 12:2; Acts 20:22-24
4. A Herald—1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11, 4:2
5. An Ambassador—2 Corinthians 5:20; Ephesians 6: 19-20
6. A Servant—1 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:24
Lum points out similarities between Jesus and Paul in Preparation and in Ministry.
Similar Preparation: They had a deep sense of commission, they were well trained by life, they were full of the Spirit and they each had the heart of a servant.
Similar Ministry: Their message was reconciliation to God, they had a worldwide vision, they had a strategy, they focused on basic ministries, they trained disciple makers to carry on the work, they were men of perseverance, they were part of a team, they were men of compassion, and they were men of passion.
12. Members of a Family
Illustration
John M. Braaten
The genius of God's plan is obvious. If we recognize that we are all members of the same family, if we acknowledge that God desires to hold us in a single peace then, ideally, we will stop fighting with each other and destroying one another and instead begin standing with one another and working together to bring people to Christ and to become an answer to prayer for those who cry out to God for help.
However, if your family is like my family, your day-today operation is not marked with constant good will and cooperation. Parents can disagree with each other, or the children, or the youngsters with each other. There are so many possibilities for dissension - goals will vary, opinions often differ and wills may clash. I think the reason for the popularity of the television cartoon "The Simpsons" is that it lays bare some of the battles which are fought in the arenas of many homes. Apparently there is some comfort in knowing that others experience problems similar to one's own. But if love is at the heart of our relationships, and forgiveness is liberally applied, there is still a family unity and loyalty which acts like a glue – unity holds family members together even when they are apart and loyalty brings them together again at times of crisis or joyful celebration.
The church as the family of God has characteristics similar to other family units but with infinitely more possibilities for disagreement and dissension. It is no wonder then that Paul saw the primary task of the church as one of reconciliation: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
13. Lord, Excuse Me
Illustration
Philip W. McLarty
Luke tells the same parable in a simpler, less militant way. (Luke 14:16-24) According to Luke, the host invited three friends, but each was predisposed. One had just bought some land, another five yoke of oxen, and another had just gotten married.Given the particulars, each had a reasonable excuse. Years ago, a friend of mine put this together in a song and sang it to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies." It went like this:
"I cannot come to the banquet, excuse me, I pray,
I've just bought a field, I must gather my hay;
I hate to miss the party, and I know this sounds dumb,
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come.
"I cannot come to the banquet, excuse me, dear sir,
I've just bought a cow, and her cream I must stir;
I hate to miss the party, all the food and the fun,
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come.
"I cannot come to the banquet, excuse me, my Lord,
I've just married a wife, and I gave her my word;
I hate to miss the party, and all that good rum,
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come.
"I cannot come to the banquet, I'm too busy, you see,
Perhaps another time would be better for me;
I know the table's ready, and I feel like a bum:
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come!"
Either way, the message is the same: Whatever your excuse, the kingdom must go on. God is at work reconciling the world to himself and, if we're too busy or, for whatever reason, unwilling to be part of this ministry of reconciliation, God will choose others to do his bidding.
14. Bless the Hungry
Illustration
Staff
In the Antarctic summer of 1908-9, Sir Ernest Shackleton and three companions attempted to travel to the South Pole from their winter quarters. They set off with four ponies to help carry the load. Weeks later, their ponies dead, rations all but exhausted, they turned back toward their base, their goal not accomplished.
Altogether, they trekked 127 days. On the return journey, as Shackleton records in The Heart of the Antarctic, the time was spent talking about food elaborate feasts, gourmet delights, sumptuous menus. As they staggered along, suffering from dysentery, not knowing whether they would survive, every waking hour was occupied with thoughts of eating. Jesus, who also knew the ravages of food deprivation, said,
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for RIGHTEOUSNESS." We can understand Shackleton's obsession with food, which offers a glimpse of the passion Jesus intends for our quest for righteousness.
15. Sermon Opener or Ender for Pentecost
Illustration
Rick Kirchoff
Welcome to Pentecost in the 2020s!
It is a time to open up to the mind-blowing, heart-warming, life-changing power of God.
The power of God can invade the body, inflate the mind, swell the soul, lift the Spirit and make us more than we ever imagined.
It'll make you young when you're old, and it'll make you live even when you die.
The power and presence of the Spirit will disturb, delight, deliver and lift.
When God sends forth the Spirit, "the whole face of the earth is renewed."
When God sends forth the Spirit chaos is changed into creation the Red Sea opens up to a highway of freedom.
When God sends forth the Spirit:
A young woman says "Yes". Jesus is born and life is never the same.
When God sends forth the Spirit amazing things happen:
[Ask the congregation to join you by repeating the following]
barriers are broken,
communities are formed,
opposites are reconciled,
unity is established,
disease is cured,
addiction is broken,
cities are renewed,
races are reconciled,
hope is established,
people are blessed,
and church happens.
Today the Spirit of God is present and we're gonna' have church. So be ready, get ready...God is up to something...
[Read these yourself with no response]
discouraged folks cheer up,
dishonest folks 'fees up,
sour folks sweeten up,
closed folk, open up,
gossipers shut up,
conflicted folks make up,
sleeping folks wake up,
lukewarm folk, fire up,
dry bones shake up,
and pew potatoes stand up!
But most of all, Christ the Savior of all the world is lifted up.
16. Apocalyptic Literature
Illustration
Theodore F. Schneider
This is a style of writing popular among the Hebrews from the days of the exile and into the first century. There was the belief that the world of this "age" was evil and unredeemable. As the next "age" of righteousness breaks in with God's intervention, the powers of evil will rage until they are finally defeated and the righteous of God are vindicated. There were, of course, many variations on the basic theme. This "apocalyptic" style sought to bring eternal realities into earthly images that could be comprehended in this eschatological drama of the "last things." While prophetic in tone, it was written to encourage the faithful in its day. In the case of today's gospel, virtually all Jesus had predicted has already been fulfilled. Yet, its value then and now is significant because:
- It believed firmly in God's power and intent to defeat the forces of evil. Folks in our generation have little sense of direction or of destiny. If salvation is believed at all, it is considered "universal."
- Apocalyptic writings looked seriously upon the powers of evil, seeing a fearful and significant cosmic struggle. The ancient baptismal question is basic: "Do you renounce all the forces of evil, the devil and all of his empty promises?"8 We are called upon every day to decide, and we need to deal seriously with the "forces of evil."
- Apocalyptic literature called upon its readers to decide, to stand firm and to join the battle for justice and righteousness. Precisely put, "Whose side are you on?"
All of which is the point to Jesus' answer to the very natural questions of his disciples: "How?" "When?" and "What will be the warning signs?"
17. PREACHER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Mark 1:14 - "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God,"
Preaching, the proclamation of a divine message, and the regular instruction of the converted in the doctrines and duties of the faith, is as old as the human family. Noah is referred to as "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5). This is not a distinctly Judaistic or Christian concept; the Mohammedans practice it freely, and it is not unknown among the Buddhists. It has its roots in the activity of the Hebrew prophets and scribes, the former representing the broader appeal, the latter the edification of the faithful, and in the ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles, where again we have both the evangelical invitation and the teaching of truth and duty. Whichever is emphasized in preaching, the preacher is one who believes himself to be the ambassador of God, charged with a message which it is his duty to deliver.
From the Acts of the Apostles we gather something of the methods adopted by St. Peter and St. Paul, and these we may believe were more or less general for the preachers of the Primitive Church. The Apostles who had known the Lord would naturally recall the facts of his life, and the story of his words and works would form a great deal of their preaching. It is not until we come to Origen (d. 254) that we find preaching as an explanation and application of definite texts, a usage that Christianity adopted from Greek rhetoricians.
The New Testament writers drew a definite distinction between preaching and teaching. Preaching is the proclamation of the gospel to men who have not yet heard it. Teaching is an instruction or exhortation on various aspects of Chrisitan life and thought addressed to a community already established in the faith.
Today, of course, the preacher or minister or pastor of a congregation is usually called upon to perform both functions. But the preaching mission of the church is still its prime function and should be considered so.
See HERALD
18. Commitment
Illustration
Clarence Forseburg, one of the great pulpiteers of Methodism, tells of a story that occurred to him several years ago. He was on the campus of Nebraska Wesleyan talking to a group of students who had expressed an interest in the ministry. When asked how many of them were definitely committed to going into the parish ministry, only one raised their hand. One young lady spoke up and said: "I have a problem with your use of the word commitment. That sounds very binding and restricting.”
Bishop Kenneth Carder of Tennessee recently wrote: “The church of today has become an institution in which even belief in God is optional or peripheral. Marketing techniques for a multiple option institution have replaced response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the means of membership enlistment. The basic appeal is to self-defined needs rather than a call to radical discipleship. The church’s mission all too often is to meet it’s members perceived needs rather than to serve God’s need for a redeemed, reconciled, and healed world.”
Our concept of consumerism has crept into the church. To recruit persons and to be marketable we think that we need to be able to say: Look what our church can offer you.
In this atmosphere of a sorority rush party, talk of discipleship is muted. Discipleship means knowing who Jesus Christ is and following the revelation made known to us in his teaching, death, resurrection, and presence.
19. Good News - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
The story is told of a Franciscan monk in Australia was assigned to be the guide and "gofer" to Mother Teresa when she visited New South Wales. Thrilled and excited at the prospect of being so close to this great woman, he dreamed of how much he would learn from her and what they would talk about. But during her visit, he became frustrated. Although he was constantly near her, the friar never had the opportunity to say one word to Mother Teresa. There were always other people for her to meet.
Finally, her tour was over, and she was due to fly to New Guinea. In desperation, the Franciscan friar spoke to Mother Teresa: If I pay my own fare to New Guinea, can I sit next to you on the plane so I can talk to you and learn from you? Mother Teresa looked at him. You have enough money to pay airfare to New Guinea? she asked.
Yes, he replied eagerly. “Then give that money to the poor,” she said. “You'll learn more from that than anything I can tell you.” Mother Teresa understood that Jesus’ ministry was to the poor and she made it hers as well. She knew that they more than anyone else needed good news.
On a Saturday morning, in Nazareth, the town gathered in the synagogue to listen to Jesus read and teach. It was no big surprise. He was well known in the area; it was his hometown. He was raised there. They wanted to learn from him. So when he read from the Isaiah scroll, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor” everyone understood these words to be the words of Isaiah. It is how that prophet from long ago defined his ministry.
When Jesus finished that reading he handed the scroll to the attendant and sat down. In that day you sat in the Moses Seat to teach to the people. Today preachers stand in a pulpit. So all eyes were on Jesus, waiting for him to begin his teaching. What would he say about this great prophet Isaiah? Would he emphasis the bad news? Israel had sinned and would be taken into captivity by the Babylonians. Or would he emphasis the good news? One day God would restore his people and bring them back from captivity. It was Israel’s ancient history but it still spoke volumes.
Now here’s the wonderful twist, the thing that catches everyone off guard that Saturday morning in Nazareth. Jesus does neither. He doesn’t emphasize those things past. He focuses on the present. He doesn’t lift up Isaiah as the great role model; Jesus lifts up himself. This is the pertinent point. It’s what upsets everybody at the synagogue. It’s why everybody was furious with him and drove him out of town. They were going to kill him. He dared to say that these great words of Isaiah were really about himself. “Today,” he said, “this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Why does Jesus describe himself as the new Isaiah? How is it that he is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words? Let’s take a look at…
1. The captivity and restoration of Israel under Isaiah’s ministry.
2. The captivity of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
3. The restoration of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
20. The Burden Bearing Christ - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
There is a wonderful legend concerning the quiet years of Jesus, the years prior to his visible ministry. The legend claims that Jesus the carpenter was one of the master yoke-makers in the Nazareth area. People came from miles around for a yoke, hand carved and crafted by Jesus son of Joseph.
When customers arrived with their team of oxen Jesus would spend considerable time measuring the team, their height, the width, the space between them, and the size of their shoulders. Within a week, the team would be brought back and he would carefully place the newly made yoke over the shoulders, watching for rough places, smoothing out the edges and fitting them perfectly to this particular team of oxen.
That's the yoke Jesus invites us to take. Do not be misled by the word "easy," for its root word in Greek speaks directly of the tailor-made yokes: they were "well-fitting." The yoke Jesus invites us to take, the yoke that brings rest to weary souls, is one that is made exactly to our lives and hearts. The yoke he invites us to wear fits us well, does not rub us nor cause us to develop sore spirits and is designed for two. His yokes were always designed for two. And our yoke-partner is none other than Christ himself.
Running throughout all scripture from the beginning to the end is the theme that ours is a burden bearing Christ. He is not just a Lord whom we burden, and we do, but a Lord who actually solicits our burdens. I want to think with you this morning concerning that thought. He who would be effective must first be free from his burdens. And, it is Christ who frees us. Frees us from...
1. The burden of sin
2. The burden of self-righteousness.
3. Our burdens. So we can bear the burden of others.
21. Reasons for Jesus Submitting to Baptism
Illustration
Brett Blair
At first blush it seems odd that the student is baptizing the master. But John is a conduit. He is simply performing the ritual. The reasons for Jesus' submission are far deeper and to the heart of overall mission. He is baptized for these reasons:
- To fulfill all Righteousness: To be consecrated to God and approved by God.
- The public announcement of the arrival of the Messiah and the inception of His ministry.
- Identification with human sin and identification of himself with the peoples movement toward God.
- To be an example to his followers.
22. Gospel Grandmothers
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
United Church has a tradition. They were known for supporting their pastors very well. Any pastor who has ever served at United will verify the truth of this tradition. Pastors, for example, consider it a privilege to serve in this congregation deep in the heart of Texas. Pastor Mike Snyder surely did. Pastor Mike, as everyone called him, had had a kind of love affair with this congregation throughout his nine years of service at United. The feeling was mutual. The people of United felt uniquely blessed by him as well.
It was not much of a surprise, therefore, when the church board at United decided to hold a special evening meeting to honor and celebrate the ministry of Pastor Mike Snyder. Someone on the board had found out that this year was the 25th anniversary of Pastor Snyder's ordination. Everyone agreed immediately that there should be a party, a Texas-style party to honor their pastor's 25 years of ordained ministry. And so it was.
The party for Pastor Snyder's anniversary was held on a hot Texas summer night. Just about the whole congregation turned out for it. Choirs sang their favorite numbers. The younger children recited verses of Bible stories they had learned. One of the members of the high school youth group spoke on their behalf. Many adults spoke as well. There was a representative of the women's organization, the men's club, the church board and just about every other group at United.
In their speeches people took care not to paint Pastor Snyder as some kind of perfect saint. It wasn't that Pastor Snyder's ministry with them was without fault. In fact, they knew his faults pretty well. There were some well-timed jokes concerning the fact that Pastor Snyder often neglected his own family in order to get all the ministry done at United. "You have to find more time for your own family," said the woman from the women's organization. Other jokes teased Pastor Snyder about the short fuse on his temper. They reminded him gently to put a lid on it!
And so the party went on. Words of thanksgiving and praise were spoken. So were words of caution and concern. And now it was time for Pastor Snyder's response. Jimmie Jones, chair of the church board, invited the pastor to the podium. "One of the things you've done best among us," said Jimmie, "is to help bring faith to life. We'd like to know who helped you. Who helped you to faith, Pastor Mike?"
"My grandmother," said Pastor Snyder without hesitation. "I believe that my grandmother had a tremendous shaping power over my life of faith even though I never knew her. She died eight years before I was born. But I heard the stories. I heard stories of how she headed up the Sunday school until she died. I heard stories of how she was the pioneer in seeing to it that the English language was introduced into her congregation of immigrants. I heard many stories of her faith."
"I can't explain it but I have always felt that my call to the ministry was a call to fulfill my grandmother's legacy. In some mysterious way I feel that her vision of Christian service has been passed along to me. She is, in a very special way, my 'gospel grandmother.' I'll bet many people here tonight can name a 'gospel grandmother' who has helped to lead you to faith. I thank God, we should all thank God, for our grandmothers in the faith!"
23. Ministry Everywhere
Illustration
King Duncan
Let me tell you about a man named Paige Patterson. Paige's style of ministry and even his theology may not exactly fit ours, but Paige cares about people. Paige ministered to troubled youth in ways that no one else did. He would go to places where youth were, like bars, nightclubs and the streets. At first the people in his church were in shock. This was a new experience and a new ministry for them. But soon they got over their shock and got on board and began a campus ministry to reach out to youth. And the youth responded positively: they liked having people from the church meet them where they were without getting obnoxious.
One night Paige was asked to leave a nightclub because, the manager told him, he was running off his business. Paige says it was no big deal. Anyway, as he stepped out onto the front porch, Paige noticed a big man sitting there with a can of beer in his hand, who was a bouncer for the club. "Looks like it's been a rough night," Paige said casually. The big man nodded and said it indeed had been.
"I don't want to offend you," Paige told him, "but if you died where you're sitting right now, would you be in heaven or hell?" The man instantly crushed the can he was holding, and beer shot everywhere. "I can't believe you asked that question," he said in disbelief. "I was just sitting here thinking how I was going to kill myself when I got home."
"There's no reason to do that," Paige told him, "nothing's that bad." Then Paige began to witness to the man about his faith in Jesus Christ. He told the man that God still loved him. And the two men talked for the next thirty minutes. The next Sunday this man went to church and committed his life to Jesus Christ.
Somehow I can see Jesus doing that kind of ministry if he were with us here physically today. Oh, not just in night clubs. But in offices and in living rooms and at Little League ball games - any place he could be with and get to know people. Jesus cares about people. That means he cares about you and me. Don't be put off by the formality of "church." Look beyond the robes and rituals. Look to a risen Savior who gave his life for only one purpose: people.
Note: Paige Patterson, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, and one timepresident of the Southern Baptist Convention, wasbeen removed in 2018 from his position as president of a Texas seminary (SBTS) following allegations that he made abusive and demeaning comments to women. He was keptas a president emeritus. The events in the bar story above happened in Patterson's younger years of ministry.
24. Great Reversals
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
The theme of poverty, riches, possessions and the realm of God is a constant theme of Luke. It begins with Mary's song. Mary had an encounter with an angel. "You will bear a son and call his name Jesus," the angel announced. "Let it be with me according to your word," said Mary. Elizabeth, Mary's relative, blessed Mary for her trust that God's word of promise would be fulfilled. And then Mary sang a song. Mary's song may just well be the central song of Luke's entire gospel. Luke tells many stories in his gospel that are best understood as comments on her song!
Mary's song sings of a God of great reversals. This God has high regard for a lowly maiden. This God scatters the proud and puts down the mighty from their thrones. The high are made low and the low are exalted. This God, furthermore, fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich away empty-handed. That's the kind of God that Mary sings about it. A God of great reversals. A God who makes the rich poor and the poor rich.
Jesus sings a similar song in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth. During the worship service that day Jesus was given the scroll of Isaiah that he might read it to the congregation. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," Jesus read, "because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). Isaiah had prophesied that God would send a spirit-filled servant who would bring a great reversal to human affairs. After he had finished reading from the Isaiah scroll, Jesus gave it to the attendant and sat down. Every eye in the synagogue was fixed upon him. Jesus spoke. "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," he said. He was the spirit-filled servant of whom Isaiah had prophesied. He was the one who would bring great reversals to life in fulfillment of Mary's song. He was the one who brought good news to the poor.
"Blessed are you poor." We should not be surprised at these words of Jesus to his disciples. In Luke 6:20-26 Jesus also speaks of great reversals. The poor will be blessed. The hungry will be satisfied. The weeping ones shall laugh. Those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake will rejoice. Reversals work the other way as well. The weak of the earth will be blessed but the mighty of the earth shall be filled with woe. Woe to the rich. Woe to those who are full now. Woe to those who laugh now. Woe to those of whom the world now speaks well.
John the Baptist watched Jesus' ministry from afar. John wondered about Jesus. Was he really the promised Messiah? John sent some of his disciples to Jesus with just this question. "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?" John's disciples asked Jesus on John's behalf (Luke 7:21). Jesus had an answer for John. "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard," he instructs John's disciples, "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" (Luke 7:22). The "great reversals" have begun. That's Jesus' word to John.
Today's story from Luke is a story in this lineage. A great reversal takes place. The rich man is sent away empty. The poor hear good news!"
25. Back To Basics: The Three R's of Baptism - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Baptism is a powerful force in the life of a Christian for two reasons. It is something we share in common. Christians all over the world can say that they were baptized in Christ. You met a Catholic in Ireland. He was baptized. You met a Pentecostal in Nigeria. She was baptized. The second reason Baptism is a powerful force is that baptism takes us back to the basics. Now let me set these two ideas up for you with a couple of stories.
You perhaps at one time or another have seen on TV the old black and white video footage of the civil rights marches in the sixties. Martin Luther King often at the front received his share of stinging high-pressured water hoses. Rev. King once remarked that he and the other marchers had a common strength. He put it this way, as "we went before the fire hoses; we had known water. If we were a Baptist or some other denomination, we had been immersed. If we were Methodist, and some others, we had been sprinkled, but we knew water."
You and I know the water. All of God's children know the water. We share by our faith this common symbol, this initiation, this rite, this power of God over the deep and often raging chaos of life. We know water! All over the world Baptism unites us.
It also brings us back to the basics. Perhaps in our lifetime the most public statement of repentance was that of President Bill Clinton's. The one he made before a Prayer Breakfast on September 10, 1998. He summed up the task perfectly when he said, "I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned." Then he quoted from a book given him by a Jewish friend in Florida. The book is called "Gates of Repentance."
Clinton read this passage from the book: "Now is the time for turning. The leaves are beginning to turn from green to red to orange. The birds are beginning to turn and are heading once more toward the south. The animals are beginning to turn to storing their food for the winter. For leaves, birds and animals, turning comes instinctively. But for us, turning does not come so easily. It takes an act of will for us to make a turn. It means breaking old habits. It means admitting that we have been wrong, and this is never easy. It means losing face. It means starting all over again. And this is always painful. It means saying I am sorry. It means recognizing that we have the ability to change. These things are terribly hard to do. But unless we turn, we will be trapped forever in yesterday's ways."
Clinton's quote ended with this prayer: "Lord help us to turn, from callousness to sensitivity, from hostility to love, from pettiness to purpose, from envy to contentment, from carelessness to discipline, from fear to faith. Turn us around, O Lord, and bring us back toward you. Revive our lives as at the beginning and turn us toward each other, Lord, for in isolation there is no life."
What ever you might think of Clinton and his sincerity, he understood that he needed to do something very basic before the nation. He needed to repent. It's amazing isn't it? Not even a president can escape the basic truths of life. It's like in elementary school. Our parents and teachers understand the importance of building a strong foundation for a child's future. So, we were taught the basics, the three R's: Reading, writing, and arithmetic. Ever notice that only one of those begins with an R. I always thought the fellow that came up with that one needed to go back to school.
As parents and teachers and leaders today we would do well to remember that life is still composed of basics. That is why, when Mark chose to open his Gospel, he did so with the Baptism of Jesus at the Jordan. Baptism reminds us of the three R's of the soul: Repentance, righteousness, and revelation. So, don't be amazed when a president of the United States repents before the nation for even Christ himself, as we have just read, began his ministry identifying with the basics: repentance, righteousness, and revelation. Christ submitted himself to the basics. You ask me, Pastor, why should I be baptized? My answer is, Christ himself was baptized, so should you. Baptism begins the most basic elements of the Christian walk: Repentance from sin, a life of righteousness, and an understanding that God has reveled himself in Christ.
Let's take a look at our Lord's Baptism and what it tells us about the three spiritual R's:
1. The first R is Repentance.
2. The second R is Righteousness.
3. The third R is Revelation.
26. The Life of a Pastor
Illustration
H. B. London, Jr.
Consider the following sobering survey results of the personal and professional lives of the clergy:
- 90% of pastors work more than 46 hours a week
- 80% believed that pastoral ministry affected their families negatively
- 33% said that being in ministry was an outright hazard to their family
- 75% reported a significant stress-related crisis at least once in their ministry
- 50% felt unable to meet the needs of the job
- 90% felt they were inadequately trained to cope with ministry demands
- 70% say they have a lower self-esteem now than when they started out
- 40% reported a serious conflict with a parishioner at least once a month
- 37% confessed having been involved in inappropriate sexual behavior with someone in the church
- 70% do not have someone they consider a close friend.
27. Blaming
Illustration
Jon L. Joyce
"Who sinned, this man or his parents?" the disciples asked. And Jesus replied, "Neither." But the disciples wanted to place blame on someone for this man’s blindness. Why do so many people follow this practice? Often they hurt one another as they seek to find someone at whom they can point the finger of accusation. After all, none of us is blameless. Scriptures tell us "all have sinned." It is sometimes a case of self-righteousness when we try to lay blame on someone. By doing so we disrupt human relations. Even nations have been artful in this practice, going to war on the basis of first laying blame on the enemy. Colleges blame high schools for the defects of their students; high schools blame the grade schools, while grade schools blame the parents and homes. Rather than follow such a practice we need to look at ourselves, asking what God will find when he probes into our life. Also, it is time to stop passing the buck and to get at the work of making necessary improvements. Helping, not blaming, must be the order of the day.
28. A Choice for Righteousness and Not Evil
Illustration
Wayne Peterson
During the Second World War Dr. Ernest Gordon, later Chaplain of Princeton University, was a prisoner of war in Thailand. In his book, Through the Valley of the Kwai, he reflects on the difference between two Christmas seasons he spent in prison. He says that in Christmas 1942 there were thousands of American soldiers in that prison who robbed the sick among them, mistreated one another, and did not care whether the other prisoners lived or died.
During the following year, a healthy American soldier began giving his food to a sick buddy to help him get well. In time the sick prisoner recovered, but the buddy who had given him food died of malnutrition. The story of the man who sacrificed his life to save a buddy made the rounds of the camp.
Some of the prisoners remarked that he was a lot like Christ. Some of the soldiers began to recall passages from the Bible they had learned years earlier under far different circ*mstances. One of the passages stated, "This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Some who were Christians took heart and began to witness to other men. The prisoners began to ask about Christ and to meet for Bible study. When they began to know Christ as Lord the entire atmosphere in the camp changed from despair and desperation to hope and compassion. When Christmas of 1943 arrived, Dr. Gordon said, 2000 prisoners assembled for worship. They sang carols and someone read the story of the birth of Jesus from a Gospel account. Much more was different. In spite of their hunger, prisoners who were well shared food with the sick to help them gain strength faster. They cared for one another. They agreed that the difference came about because of faith in Christ and people who lived his love in the midst of unloving circ*mstances. The choices they made were for righteousness and not evil.
29. Lay Down Your Entitlements
Illustration
Timothy Owings
Our greatest Advent challenge seems to be the need to face the truth about ourselves. Both Isaiah and John tell us some very unflattering things about who we are and what we are capable of doing. Truth be told, all of us some of the time and some of us all of the time are in radical denial about the situation of our planet, our nation, and our lives. For example, like the people who heard John, we can claim an entitlement that keeps us from becoming the prepared and faithful people God calls us to be. The folks in John's crowd were tempted to say, "We have Abraham as our father." Meaning what? Meaning we can coast through life as the entitled ones refusing to face the demands that being Abraham's children require of us.
We do the same thing. Put your own entitlement in the blank. "We are Americans." Or, "We are Baptists." Or, "We have a rich worship tradition in our Church," Or, "We have _______." For God to prepare us for God's coming in Jesus Christ, we must lay down our entitlements, our selfish "rights," anything that may indicate a sense of ownership, and confess that God has the gift of God's Kingdom, and we cannot receive the gift until we first admit we deeply and honestly need it. Justice, righteousness, peace, and dozens of other gifts all come into our needy lives, not from our own bankrupt professions or clichéd confessions. Advent is about receiving God's judgment on all our self-protecting behaviors so we can finally, at last, receive God's gift of uncommon grace.
30. Tell Me about God
Illustration
Linda B. Hirst
There's that wonderful story about the little boy who couldn't wait for his new baby sister to come home from the hospital. He couldn't wait to be near her, to talk to her. But his parents didn't want him to be left alone with her; he was only four, they wanted to supervise his visits. He kept begging to be alone with her so one night his parents finally relented. The boy tiptoed into her room and next to his sister's crib and said: "Tell me about God - I'm starting to forget."
We need to gather together around this table every once in awhile to tell each other about God; to remember just how much God loves us. To tell the story of how God reached out to us, came to us in Jesus Christ to show us a new way of living. We need to break the bread and pour the cup to remember that Jesus died so that we might know forgiveness of all our sins and be reconciled with God. And we need to take this bread and drink this cup to remember that Christ is present with us now.
31. THE ONLY WAY OUT
Illustration
John H. Krahn
You are because I am. I was there from the beginning. My Father, God, and I fashioned the world that you enjoy. We hung the stars in the sky, scooped out the lakes, formed the mountains. But our genius was no more evident than when we made you. You are so magnificent. Consider yourself - your ability to think and reason. Do you realize how special you are? We had such a great thing going in the garden.
Unfortunately, the devil talked your forebears into trying to be like God, and they both fell for it. My Father and I had no choice but to show them the exit from Eden. Because of their sin, we had to face the decision whether or not to save what we created or to destroy it all. Save it, we decided. Later, in response to a promise made to your father Abraham, I, the son of God, was implanted by the Holy Spirit in a young virgin’s womb. They called me Jesus, for I had come to save you and all humankind from the consequences of your sins.
The plan of salvation was not complicated, although it was generous perhaps to a fault. You had sinned and continue to sin. It is your nature from the time of the Fall. Therefore, you cannot save yourself. Although some of you sin less than others, none of you is perfect. My Father demands perfection - he will not stand for any imperfection in eternity. Fortunately for you, my Father is also compassionate, and his love goes beyond human love. He wanted to reclaim you as his own, therefore, he decided to be inflicted with suffering and death. To accomplish this, he sent me - part of himself - to become a person like you and to receive punishment and death in your place.
Some of you only see me as an Alka Seltzer for an occasional headache, rather than a Savior for a whole new life. You call upon me and my Father for help only when all else seems to fail. Voices we haven’t heard in years make their way heavenward in dying breaths. Others make a puzzle out of our plan for your salvation. You continue to believe that you must add some of your goodness and righteousness (which is really in short supply by heaven’s standards) to my sacrificial death on the cross. Friends, I paid the price - one hundred percent at Calvary.
Can you imagine how I feel as your God, having humbled myself by becoming a human being, giving up heaven for a stinking stable, being misunderstood, mocked, tortured, spit upon, and hung, all because of you and your wretched sinfulness ... and then to have you believe that this was not enough. To have you, in your pride, believe that some goodness of yours would need to be added in order for the Father to receive you into heaven angers and disappoints me. You can do nothing to save yourself; I did it all because I love you. Please get it into your head, once and for all, I am your only way out of the pits of hell. As I said while I was with you on earth, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me!" May the Holy Spirit convince your hearts of my love, and may you understand that believing in me is the only way to be saved; sufficient in itself, needing absolutely no human works, no false pride, no human righteousness, nothing ... nothing ... nothing at all to be added to it. I died to purchase a place for you in heaven which I offer to you as a gift which you must receive totally and exclusively by faith.
32. No Record of Wrong
Illustration
John Flavel
There was a man in England who put his Rolls-Royce on a boat and went across to the continent to go on a holiday. While he was driving around Europe, something happened to the motor of his car. He cabled the Rolls-Royce people back in England and asked, "I'm having trouble with my car; what do you suggest I do?" Well, the Rolls-Royce people flew a mechanic over! The mechanic repaired the car and flew back to England and left the man to continue his holiday. As you can imagine, the fellow was wondering, "How much is this going to cost me?" So when he got back to England, he wrote the people a letter and asked how much he owed them. He received a letter from the office that read: "Dear Sir: There is no record anywhere in our files that anything ever went wrong with a Rolls-Royce."
Did Christ finish His work? How dangerous it is to join anything of our own to the righteousness of Christ, in pursuit of justification before God! Jesus Christ will never endure this; it reflects upon His work dishonorably. He will be all, or none, in our justification. If He has finished the work, what need is there of our additions? And if not, to what purpose are they? Can we finish that which Christ Himself could not complete? Did He finish the work, and will He ever divide the glory and praise of it with us? No, no; Christ is no half-Savior. It is a hard thing to bring proud hearts to rest upon Christ for righteousness. God humbles the proud by calling sinners wholly from their own righteousness to Christ for their justification.
33. The Image of Perfection
Illustration
Michael Milton
I will never forget June Day. June Day was a girl in our class in Junior High School who was always called upon to stand at the board and take names in case any of us acted up while the teacher went out to that strange, mysterious place called the faculty lounge. Basically, the teacher couldn't take anymore and needed a break. And June Day was called upon to police the room. I must admit that during those days I did not like June Day because June invariably wrote my name on the board. But one day when the teacher went out and June stood, with chalk in hand, eyes scanning the class for any signs of misbehavior, the class could take no more of June. The class erupted into a giant spitball arena. It was absolute anarchy. Suddenly, June got hit-right in the face. There was silence. We wondered what would happen. June put down her chalk, bent over, got the spitball, and threw it back. She was a part of the anarchy! June Day was not perfect! She could not keep up her veneer of perfection. She was a party to the crime. It was then, as June's arm was co*cked back ready to sail another projectile through the class, that our teacher returned. "June! What are you doing?" I forgot to tell you that the teacher was her mother. But poor old June Day met her match, and she just couldn't keep up her image of being perfect.
And you know what? Neither can you. None of us can. We cannot come to God based on our righteousness. Do you know what God calls it? He says our righteousness before Him is like filthy rags. So what do we do? We divest ourselves of such an idea. It is unbelief and it is a sin against Christ and His blood shed for sinners. We come to Jesus, just as we are, without one plea and cry out to Him. It's called repentance.
34. Clothing and Spiritual Change
Illustration
Mickey Anders
Clothing is a common New Testament metaphor for spiritual change. Paul wrote in Romans, "Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature" (Rom 13:14).
And in First Corinthians, "The perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:53).
In Colossians, we read, "Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience(Colossians 3:12).
Finally, in First Peter we are admonished, "All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble'" (1 Peter 5:5).
Being clothed anew is a consistent New Testament expression for holiness and righteousness. The old clothes have to come off and new ones put on.
This text confronts us with the paradox of God's free invitation to the banquet with no strings attached and God's requirement of "putting on" something appropriate to that calling. The theological point is that we are warned of the dire consequences of accepting the invitation and doing nothing except showing up.
35. Reconciliation, Hand in Hand
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
There was a little girl whose parents had had a miserable marriage and were divorced, having nothing in common save their affection for the child. One day as the girl was playing in the street she was knocked down by a bus and seriously injured. Taken to the hospital, she was examined by the doctors but was found to be beyond human aid. Hastily summoned to the hospital, her parents heard the sad news and stood silently, one on either side of the bed, looking down helplessly at the little girl. As they stood there, the child's eyes suddenly opened and seeing her parents she tried to smile. Then drawing one arm from under the sheet, she held it out in the direction of her father. "Daddy," she said, "give me your hand." Turning to her mother, she stretched out her other arm. "Mummy," she said, "give me your hand." Then with a final effort of her fast-ebbing strength she drew them close together. This is a picture of what Christ did on the cross. The Savior took the hand of sinful hateful humanity and placed it in the loving hand of God. Jesus reconciled us to God; He broke down the barrier; He restored the broken fellowship caused by sin or turning our backs on God. Just as in this little girl's dying to bring her parents together, Jesus was dying to bring God and us together, but we have to make the effort to keep the relationship going.
36. Two Kinds of Preaching
Illustration
Scott Hoezee
Frederick Buechner once wrote about two kinds of preaching that just don't work very well. One form is what he termed "tourist preaching." You know how it is if you are in a foreign country as a tourist but cannot speak the native language: what do you end up doing when you have to ask for directions? You speak in English but each time you repeat yourself, you say it a little louder. We operate on the assumption that if only we speak English loudly, slowly, and distinctly enough, everyone in the world will be able to understand us. It doesn't work that way. The only language people understand is their own. We need to be sure that when we talk to people about God, it is in speech they can comprehend.
The other kind of preaching that fails to connect, Buechner says, is "algebraic preaching." x + y = z is a pretty typical algebra formula. If you know what number is represented by just the "y" of that problem, you know a little something but still won't likely solve the whole equation. If you know what both the "y" and the "z" are, then you can get the "x" pretty quickly. The problem with some preachers is that they lace their sentences with words like "atonement" and "righteousness," thinking that this will lead people to love Jesus. But for a lot of people, theological vocabulary is like an undefined "x" and "y" in an algebra problem: they are going to need something more to grasp the meaning of it all.
37. Looking Through Christ
Illustration
Michael P. Green
If we look through a piece of red glass, everything is red. If we look through a piece of blue glass, everything is blue. If we look through a piece of yellow glass, everything is yellow, and so on. When we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior, God looks at us through the Lord Jesus Christ. He sees us in all the white holiness of his Son. Our sins are imputed to the account of Christ and his righteousness to our account.
38. Illustrations for Lent Easter Old Testament Texts
Illustration
Jon L. Joyce
1. God destroys as well as preserves [Isaiah 42:14]
Luther says that God is to be both loved and feared. The same God of compassion who is eager to show love to those who turn to him is equally determined to root out and destroy evil. Isaiah is warning us not to be lulled to sleep by thinking only of the kindness of God. He who shows patience toward our waywardness will eventually cease to overlook unatoned sin and will destroy. He holds all the power of the universe in his hands to work his ends. Our eternal destiny is for him to determine. Are we tempting God by clinging to things he opposes? Remember God has said, "I will destroy." The time to repent and make peace with him is now.
2. Christ will restore sight [Isaiah 42:16]
A blind beggar walking down a street on a day in spring carried a sign saying, "It is April, and I am blind." How pitiful that he was blind at any time. But on a spring day it was even worse; he could not see the newly formed leaves on the trees, or the beautiful flowers blooming on every hand. He could not see the earth bathed in sunshine or the glow of a sunset in the western sky. But another blindness is even worse. It can come to those who have retained their physical sight. There is a saying, "None is so blind as he that will not see." When Isaiah talks of the blind he includes everyone who does not have spiritual insight. Children laugh at the phrase, "I see, said the blind man." Yet it is true that the physically blind can see many things which the person with sight overlooks. So God promises to help us in our spiritual blindness. He will show us the path of righteousness, reveal opportunities to serve our fellow man, to improve ourselves, and to see the Christ who is hidden from those who do not believe in Him.
3. Idolators shall be ashamed [Isaiah 42:17]
Idol worship seems like something out of the long past. It brings to mind visions of ignorant people in an earlier age bowing down before a statue which to them is their god. So this verse does not seem to apply to the one who reads it today. Here is where we deceive ourselves. Idolatry is a very subtle thing. It was said of Sampson that he did not know when the Lord had forsaken him, and thought he could go on in strength as he had before. So idolatry creeps upon anyone who is not alert. It is so easy to cater to oneself; to want fame and fortune so badly that we slowly let these desires come between us and God. Beware lest great shame come upon you because idols of today have subtly replaced God in your objectives and desires.
4. God will be praised for his law (Gospel) [Isaiah 42:21]
Our age is one of much disdain for God’s law. The ten commandments are regarded by many as out of date. They are as foolish in disdaining God’s rules and thinking they have outgrown them as was a certain sailor. The captain had pointed out the north star before turning over the wheel to the young seaman. He told the young man to steer constantly toward that star. The captain then took a nap and upon awakening found that the ship was not on course. When he questioned the young sailor what had gone wrong, he was told, "I have sailed past that star, show me another one." No one can sail past the ten commandments. They remain as up-to-date as the day’s news announcements. God has chosen to give honor to his eternal rules, whether they be revealed in the Ten Commandments or in Jesus Christ. The wise will realize the worth of God’s laws and strive to obey and honor them.
39. The Highest Priority
Illustration
Arthur E. Dean Windhorn
Have you ever been in a hurry and buttoned up a long overcoat with lots of buttons and when you were done, found out that the coat was uneven? What went wrong? I'll tell you what went wrong. When you don't get the first button in the right hole, all the rest are out of sequence too, right?! That's a parable about life. Jesus said it this way in the Sermon on the Mount: "Seek first God's kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well." (Matthew 6:33) If the Lord is not the high priority in your life, then, like the overcoat, so many other things in life will be out of whack as well.
40. Is There No Balm in Gilead? - Sermon Opener
Illustration
Staff
Let me say right off the bat that the two men I am about to discuss with you, are, in my opinion, good Christian men who do a lot of valuable work for the Church and God's kingdom in this world. It just so happens they are both in the middle of a controversy because of a position they took with regard to our nation's tragedy. I am talking about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. On Thursday the 13th, two days after the attack, Pat Robertson said that because of America's pursuit of financial gain, health, wealth, material pleasures, sexuality, rampant p*rnography on the Internet, secularism and the occult, 35-40 million abortions, and a few other things, God Almighty is lifting His protection from us. Once that protection is gone, he said, we are vulnerable.
A little later in his broadcast he recognized that there are evil people in this world who do evil things but went on to say, and I quote, "It happened because God is lifting His protection from this nation and we must pray and ask Him for revival so that once again we will be His people, the planting of His righteousness, so that He will come to our defense and protect us as a nation." That's what Pat Robertson said. Jerry Falwell, that same night, jumped in a little deeper blaming the devastation on pagans, abortionists, feminists, hom*osexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People for the American Way.
Now, let me give you a little piece of advice. If you think this, don't announce it on national TV for all to hear two days after a national tragedy. You won't like the response. The next morning a White House representative called Falwell as he was driving to the National Cathedral memorial service in Washington, and told him the President disapproved. I never want to say something so egregious that I get a call from the office of the president. Falwell has since apologized. He even posted his apology on his Liberty University web site, "In the midst of the shock and mourning of a dark week for America, I made," he confessed, "a statement that I should not have made and which I sincerely regret. I want to apologize to every American, including those I named."
I think Falwell did the right thing in apologizing and I accept it as sincere. But, he and Robertson raise an important question. It is a question all of us have struggled with from time-to-time at the death of a loved one or during a particular life crises. We second guess ourselves and wonder if our sins have brought upon us God's judgment and life's misfortunes.
I suppose it is only natural then for us to pose the question at this critical time. So, let's go ahead and ask the question. Is this God's judgment? To answer that question let's first look at Jeremiah.
1. God's relationship to Israel (Jeremiah text).
2. The Church's (and God's changed) relationship to the State--Jesus the new Balm.
3. The Church's responsibility to pray for leadership (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-7).
41. Your Father Loves You
Illustration
James Packer
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). Commenting on this verse Martin Luther wrote: "All the prophets did foresee in Spirit that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc., that ever was or could be in all the world. For he, being made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world is not now an innocent person and without sins...but a sinner." He was, of course, talking about the imputing of our wrongdoing to Christ as our substitute.
Luther continues: "Our most merciful Father...sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him...the sins of all men saying: Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blasphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged upon the cross; and briefly be thou the person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now comes the law and saith: I find him a sinner...therefore let him die upon the cross. And so he setteth upon him and killeth him. By this means the whole world is purged and cleansed from all sins."
The presentation of the death of Christ as the substitute exhibits the love of the cross more richly, fully, gloriously, and glowingly than any other account of it. Luther saw this and gloried in it. He once wrote to a friend: "Learn to know Christ and him crucified. Learn to sing to him, and say, 'Lord Jesus, you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You have taken upon yourself what is mine and given me what is yours. You became what you were not, so that I might become what I was not.'" What a great and wonderful exchange! Was there ever such love?
42. Forgiveness
Illustration
Kendall K. McCabe
Forgiveness is part of the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives. More accurately, it is the action of Christ through the Holy Spirit in our midst. By the power of the Spirit, Christ is present both forgiving us and forgiving through us. The Spirit is given to us by Christ himself. He breathed upon the disciples and they received the Holy Spirit.
In one of her books, Corrie Ten Boom tells of meeting the guard from the concentration camp where she and her family had been held by the Nazis. She had been speaking at a large church meeting, and after the meeting he had come forward. He put out his hand to her, and she instinctively pulled back, remembering the horrors to which that hand had been put or in which it had cooperated, but then, she testified, something came over her, she knew not what, and she reached out and grasped his hand and extended her forgiveness as the tears rolled down his cheeks.
There will be those who say this is merely sentimental and who grit their teeth, as they demand more obvious vengeance; I cannot judge them. I only know that to forgive in such a manner is beyond human comprehension; it is the work of God and can only be done by us through the grace of God at work in us. Nor, is it an attitude we Christians carry around with us all the time, like little Mary Sunshines. Corrie Ten Boom received the grace to forgive in the moment the grace was needed, and not before. Our Lord, upon the cross, forgave his executioners while he was being nailed to it; there was no plenary absolution in advance. Forgiveness, like the resurrection, breaks in upon us through shut doors.
We are called and sent to participate in Christ's message of forgiveness because we have been forgiven. "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." Christ was sent to be the agent of reconciliation, and we are to be such agents in the world. It seems to me a sad fact that forgiveness has been for sale in the church during so much of its history, when it should have been given away.
43. Three Characteristics of Success
Illustration
Brett Blair
The most successfulcompanies aren't successful because of charismatic leadershipor because they found some"great idea" that no one else came up with. Instead, these highly successful companies share three distinct characteristics:
- First, the focus of each one had always been on a set of core values that never changed.
- Second, each company always had a purpose that was higher than just making a profit.
- Third, there was a relentless drive to change and improve everything in the company except their core values, which, for most, had been in place since the early years of the company's existence.
Jesus' church is grounded in the same principles.Our core values are summarized in these words, seek first the kingdom of God and hisrighteousness, and all these things will be given to you. In other words, put what God values, first in your life, and the success that really matters, will be added to your life, after that.
If that's our core value then what is our Goal? It is found in these three parables -save that which is lost.
44. Number One on the List
Illustration
Brett Blair
Ivy Lee (1877–1934) was an American publicity expert and worked as a consultant for a number of businesses. One of those was for Charles Schwab, who was then president of Bethlehem Steel. Schwab was obsessed with efficiency and wanted Bethlehem Steel to become more productive. Ivy Lee was brought in.
Schwab asked: “Show me a way to get more things done.”
Lee: “Give me 15 minutes with each of your executives”
Schwab: “How much will it cost me?”
Lee: “Nothing. Unless it works. After three months, you can send me a check for whatever you feel it’s worth to you.”
Schwab agreed and during those 15 minutes with each executive, Lee laid out the following five step method:
- At the end of each working day, write down the fivemost important things you need to accomplish tomorrow. Do not write down more than fivetasks.
- Prioritize thoseitems in order of their true importance.
- When you arrive tomorrow, concentrate only on the first task. Work until the first task is finished before moving on to the second task.
- Approach the rest of your list in the same way. Don’t worry if you’ve only finished one or two by the end of the day; the others can wait.
- Repeat this process every working day.
It’s simple right? Well, Schwab and his team starting using this method. It worked well, very well. After a couple months of outstanding production from his staff Schwab senta $25,000 check to Lee. Adjusted for inflation that's $400,000 today!
Today this simple approach is called theThe Ivy Lee Method. It's amillion dollar productivity approachfor a lot of companies. If we were to apply the Ivy Lee Method to Christianity what would it look like?I think all of would agree that Love God and Love your neighbor would be #1 on the list. But after that? What would come after that. I think this text is a good candidate for #2: So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' Rather seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
In fact isn't that the Ivy Lee method itself?Let's call it the Jesus Method:Trust in God; pursue what is Good, and don't worry about tomorrow. And today your needs will be met.
45. See the Resemblance
Illustration
Larry Powell
In all prrobablity, you know of some young boy who bears such a striking resemblance to his father that a person would know immediately, even in a crowd, that they were father and son. The father can be seen in the son. The Bible tells us that "God was Christ!" In what ways did the Son resemble the Father?
a. In his life. Jesus affirmed and celebrated life. His was not the attitude that this world and all that is in it are despicably evil ... that the object is to totally reject life with an eye always on "glory" ... that beauty in any form must be repressed as a tool of the devil. No, instead, Christ affirmed and celebrated life. Not a recluse, he enjoyed friendships with Lazarus, Mary, Martha, and others. He observed simple domestic gestures and was so impressed by them that he gave them a prominent place in his teachings (a woman sweeping a house, or drawing water at a well, baking bread, old wineskins bursting with new wine, lamps flickering in the night, patches on old garments). He enjoyed and absorbed the movements in nature and referred to them in order to illustrate his message; birds gathering into trees, foxes going into dens, figs withering, storm clouds boiling. Jesus affirmed life in such a positive manner, experiencing and relating to God’s great intention and design for all he had made, that we may understand life is not to be either seized nor rejected, but "lived" in an attitude of "Praise God!" In the harmony of Christ’s life with creation, we see something of God’s great intention and design for each of us.
b. In his ministry. Jesus’ ministry was characterized by the absolute "giving" of himself. He was, as one theologian puts it, "radically obedient" to God. In the same spirit, he was "radically giving" to others, always reaching, touching, healing, praying, searching, loving. The Bell Telephone Company did not originate the concept of "Reach Out and Touch Someone." The concept was in the mind of God before creation and the practice is as old as Eden. It was perfected in Jesus Christ, proclaimed in the New Testament, and is as relevant today as this morning’s newspaper. The ministry of Christ reveals a God who "spends" himself for creation.
c. In his teaching. Jesus was able to recognize and relate to God in the common life through his teachings. His life, ministry, and teachings combined to reveal a God of boundless love, caring, concern, and sensitive compassion. What he taught, he practiced. Even in death he was consistent with the witness of his life. Having spoken of "forgiving one’s enemies" and those who "despitefully use you," he gathered his words into action on Calvary. "Father, forgive them," he prayed. He taught so very much more, all of which was personified in his life. He showed that if the "good teacher" is flawlessly consistent, how much more consistent and loving must be our heavenly Father?
d. In his resurrection. Here, God unmistakably reveals himself. His power is beyond imagination. His promises are made good. His intentions and purposes will not be overthrown. His actual involvement in the world is confirmed. In the resurrected Christ, God is clearly revealed. God was, in all ways, in Christ!
46. God's Banquet Feast
Illustration
Alex Gondola
Martin Copenhaver, Pastor of the Wellesley Congregational Church, offers a vision of what God's Banquet Feast might be like: When God is throwing a party, you never know who will be there or whom you will sit next to. The financier will be seated next to the panhandler he always passed on his way to work. The store owner will be next to the person he just fired, and the doctor will be put next to the woman who just sued him for malpractice. Rush Limbaugh may be beside Barack Obama. A prostitute will sit next to the Pope.
All the "right" people will be there; that is everyone who responds to God's invitation ... and seated next to the host (Jesus) in the places of honor are not the dignitaries, the celebrities, the distinguished people of position and prominence, but rather the poor, the hurting, the outcast people who have distinguished themselves only by their need." (Library of Distinctive Sermons, vol. 2, Multnomah Press, p. 48)
I might add to Copenhaver's vision that at that Banquet Feast, everyone will get along famously. And that at that Banquet Feast, you and I may well find ourselves seated next to, and engaging in conversation with, people we presently can't stand (or who can't stand us). But the old anger, hurt, and grudges will be gone, and reconciliation will come. At God's Table, the barriers that keep people apart rich/poor, upperclass/lowerclass, black/white, Republican/Democrat, gay/straight, friend/foe, the dividing walls of hostility will come smashing down. The crash will be greater than the fall of the Berlin Wall. God's Banquet Feast will be the most remarkable party ever thrown!
47. Prodigal Sons
Illustration
John T. Seamands
In his parable of the prodigal son or, more correctly, the prodigal sons, Jesus again brings out the two-fold nature of sin. The younger son stands for the sins of the flesh, the sins of transgression. He was guilty of gluttony, drunkenness, licentiousness, and adultery. The elder son stands for the sins of the spirit, the sins of the disposition. He exhibited the inner attitudes of jealousy, self-righteousness, anger, unconcern, and an unforgiving spirit.
48. Broken: Laughing Through the Pain
Illustration
Warren W. Wiersbe
Will Rogers was known for his laughter, but he also knew how to weep. One day he was entertaining at the Milton H. Berry Institute in Los Angeles, a hospital that specialized in rehabilitating polio victims and people with broken backs and other extreme physical handicaps. Of course, Rogers had everybody laughing, even patients in really bad condition; but then he suddenly left the platform and went to the rest room. Milton Berry followed him to give him a towel; and when he opened the door, he saw Will Rogers leaning against the wall, sobbing like a child. He closed the door, and in a few minutes, Rogers appeared back on the platform, as jovial as before.
If you want to learn what a person is really like, ask three questions: What makes him laugh? What makes him angry? What makes him weep? These are fairly good tests of character that are especially appropriate for Christian leaders. I hear people saying, "We need angry leaders today!" or "The time has come to practice militant Christianity!" Perhaps, but "the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God."
What we need today is not anger but anguish, the kind of anguish that Moses displayed when he broke the two tablets of the law and then climbed the mountain to intercede for his people, or that Jesus displayed when He cleansed the temple and then wept over the city. The difference between anger and anguish is a broken heart. It's easy to get angry, especially at somebody else's sins; but it's not easy to look at sin, our own included, and weep over it.
49. What Did You Do On Earth?
Illustration
Brett Blair
The late Dr. Paul Quillian was the beloved pastor of First Methodist Church of Houston, Texas. In his fifteen years of ministry the church grew from 2500 to 6000. An effort that he called a labor of love. Not many knew that Dr. Quillian as a young man had little thought of ministry and was working in Pine Bluff Arkansas at a bottling plant when his minister paid him a call. His pastor started with the question, "How old are you?"
"Thirty."
Quillian's preacher then said, "When you stand finally before the Lord God, what will you tell him you did on earth, made red soda water?"
The young man snapped back, "And what is wrong with red soda water?"
Nothing, my son, except you happen to be endowed with great talents and abilities which I cherish for God and the Christian ministry."
Consequently, the young man went back to school and prepared for the preaching ministry. He itinerated in Arkansas. Finally he was called to the First Church in Houston. He became a wonderful leader for Christ because someone recognized the gifts and talents within him and took a few minutes out of the day to tell him so.
50. God Loves the People
Illustration
Tom Rietveld
The United States today is very similar to what 18th century England was like. Morals were all but gone on the part of the common man. The slave trade was at its height. A godless prison system entertained the people with public hangings. Gambling was a national obsession--one historian said that England was a vast casino. Drinking dominated the pastime of men and boys. False rumors were regularly used to manipulate the financial markets.
Also, the Anglican church was in decay. Zeal for Christ was considered professionally dangerous. 20% of the clergy had been removed or dismissed because of moral and ethical failures. Bishop George Berkeley wrote at the time, "It is to be feared that the age of monsters is not far off."
On to that scene came some young men known as the Holy Club of Oxford. John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, and others made a mission statement together. It said, "We want to reform the nation, particularly the church, and to spread scriptural holiness over the land." From that small group of college students, the face of England was completely changed. Even to the point where most historians agree that the revival that happened under those young men in England saved the English people from the bloody revolution that France went through.
I really don't know what is going to happen to America in the future. But I do know that the only answer to the spirit of despondency, the spirit of separatism, the spirit of impurity, the spirit of guilt... is the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The United States of America needs the message that God loves people. And offers them the chance to start over, have their sins forgiven, and experience reconciliation.
Showing
1
to
50
of
306
results
- Biden lauds Kamala, blasts Trump: 'Put a prosecutor in the Oval Office instead of a convicted felon'
- Hillary Clinton: 'Kamala will restore abortion rights nationwide'
- Have false gods infiltrated American politics? 'Politics in the Pews' podcast explores
- Robert Morris’ son-in-law, Ethan Fisher, renames Gateway Church Houston in wake of scandal
- Police pay pro-life activist nearly $17K over wrongful arrest for silent prayer
- Pro-life Democrats counter Planned Parenthood's mobile abortion clinic at DNC
- Blinken meets Netanyahu, Herzog to discuss hostage deal in 9th trip to Israel since start of Gaza War
- Vatican removes Pakistani archbishop amid financial corruption, sexual abuse allegations
- South Carolina church secretary accused of stealing $404K from congregation
- ‘I’m sorry’: Drunk driver who killed pastor in wrong-way crash speaks to wife, kids at sentencing
- Bangladesh’s Religious Minorities Want Peace Amid Country’s Turmoil
- New Zealand Uncovers Historic Abuse in Church-Run Institutions
- Died: Timothy Dudley-Smith, Who Turned Metrical Poetry into Hundreds of Hymns
- After Pastor Led 400 to Starve, Some Kenyan Christians Open to Church Restrictions
- In Zimbabwe, Secular Education Is Overtaking Historic Mission Schools
- Philly Pastor: Church Parking Can Be a ‘Stumbling Block’ in the Bike Lane
- Died: Patricia Gundry, Evangelical Feminist Who Wanted Women to Be Free
- Some Churches Lose Coverage as Insurers Hit by a Wave of Storm Claims
- The Olympics’ Most Iconic Photo Has a Christian Message
- Died: Doris Brougham, Missionary Who Taught English to Taiwan
- Donald Trump's Easter Prayer Was a Mishap Without Teleprompter, "Something Something Heaven"
- ‘Evangelicals For Harris’ Drops Brutal Ad Questioning If Trump is a ‘False Prophet’
- American Airlines makes a major reversal on its Israel flights
- Sudha Murty’s Video Explaining History Of Rakhi Faces Backlash; Netizens Says ‘Stop Propagating Falsehood!’
- Pew survey: What migration reveals about religion in India
- India’s alternative facts: how the government of Narendra Modi invents its own kind of ‘experts’ to legitimise its policies
- Pro-Harris Group Perfectly Calls Out Trump’s Christianity Scam
- Indian American Muslim group cancels parade participation amid float controversy
- ‘Destroy the Zionist Jews:’ NY mosque condemns pro-Hamas imam sermon
- J.D. Vance's Hat Trick of Election Recklessness: Insulting German-, Irish- & Italian-Americans
- Church of England Dropping Word 'Church' to be More 'Modern'
- Map Shows the Most Religious US States
- American Young Women Stop Attending Church
- A Quick Bible Study Vol. 230: Psalm Summer - Part 4
- The Atrocity Known as 'Catholics for Kamala'
- How a Persecuted Religious Group Grew Into a Global Movement
- Hagar and Ishmael as Main Characters
- Infant Loss Is Tragic and Complex. Abortion Bans Made it Worse
- On Inner Detachment
- It's Tu B'Av – Spread the Love, Yes Even this Year
