22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Marriage 101
Ephesians 5:22-23
Sermon
by James Merritt
Let me begin by making a statement that all of you either do know or should know. That is, the institution of marriage is in big trouble in America. The number of Americans getting married has dropped to a 40 year low, and "I do" has been replaced with "I won't" or "I no longer will."
A study by Rutgers University National Marriage Project found that Americans have not given up on marriage as an ideal, but there has been a catastrophic drop since 1960 in the number of couples who actually walk down the aisle and get married.1
Just consider the following:Over the last four decades Americans have become less likely to marry, and fewer of those who do marry have marriages they consider to be "very happy."
The Annual number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women declined more than 1/3 from 1970 to 1966. It is estimated that after 10 years only about 25% of first marriages are successful; that is, both still intact and happy.
The American divorce rate today is more than twice that of 1960.
The percentage of all adults who currently divorced more than quadrupled from 1960 to 1998.
The number of unmarried couples has increased dramatically over the past four decades.
Between 1960 and 1998 the number of unmarried couples in America increased by 1,000%.2
Americans are living longer, marrying later, exiting marriage more quickly, and choosing to live together before marriage, after marriage, in-between marriages, and as an alternative to marriage.
Marriage is even beginning to lose its place in our everyday language. People now tend to speak more about "relationships" and "intimate partners" than they do about marriage.
I am reminded of a pastor who went to speak to a group of 4th graders on the topic of marriage, and he asked the question: "Does anyone of you know what God has to say about marriage?" Well, immediately one little boy threw his hand up and the pastor called on him and said, "All right, what does God have to say about marriage?" The little boy said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
It is interesting to see what some people have said about marriage. A little boy asked his father the question: "Dad, how much does it cost to get married?" The father replied, "I don't know son, I'm still paying for it."
Man is incomplete until he's married, then he's really finished.Marriage is an institution which a man looses his bachelor's degree, and the woman gets her master's degree. One man said, "I never knew what real happiness was until I got married—and then it was too late."
Married life is very frustrating. In the first year of marriage the man speaks and the woman listens; in the second year the woman speaks and the man listens; in the third year they both speak and the neighbors listen. After a vicious argument a wife exploded and said to her husband, "You know I was a fool when I married you." The husband said, "Yes, dear, but I was in love and didn't notice it."
7. Well, contrary to what society is saying, and the culture is saying, marriage is still a good idea. How do I know? Because it is God's idea and God has never had a bad idea. Now there is far more to say about marriage than I could ever put in one message. But I do believe that we find principles in this text that will lay the foundation upon which you can build a marriage that will last. In Marriage 101 Paul speaks to the two primary people responsible for a good marriage—wives and husbands. He speaks first to the wives, and he says—
I. Wives Are To Fill A Sensitive Role
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord." (v.5) I know already for a lot of women your defenses are up, the hair on your neck is standing up, your fists are clinched, your teeth are grinding because of that awful "s" word. Before you out-and-out reject the concept of submission, let's learn the "what" and the "why" of it.
The word submit means to voluntarily place yourself under another person's authority. It literally means "to give up your rights." Now contrary to what the feminists say, it is not a social issue, nor is it a philosophical issue or an intellectual issue. It is a spiritual issue. Because we are told in verse 21 that all Christians are to learn the lesson of submission. You see, submission is not just for wives, it is for everyone.
But more important than the what of submission is the why. For Paul goes on to say, "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (v.23) Now I know for many, including the feminist, the humanist, and the secularist, this language is even worse. Back in the 1980s the Governor of Georgia signed a bill into law repealing a Georgia law that referred to the husband as the head of the family.3
Just a few years later there was another headline in the Atlanta Journal that read: "New Swiss Marriage Law Ends Men's Reign as Head of the House." The article began "On January 1st husbands lost their position as undisputed head of the family...." According to the new law every issue in the home was to be left to the individual discretion of the person involved; finances, debts, legal concerns, were all purely personal matters. There could be no final authority in the home.4
Well, I've got news for you. You can repeal the law, but you cannot remove the principle. Wives are to submit to their husbands because God has placed the husband as the head of the wife. God knows that no society can long exist without order. Every organization that is effective and efficient must have one head. Anything with no head is dead and anything with two heads is a freak. Every plane needs a pilot; every ship needs a captain; every train needs an engineer; every army needs a General; every navy needs an Admiral; and every family needs a head; and the head of the family is the husband.
Now to say this does not mean that the woman is inferior to the man. To show you how ridiculous this is, 1 Cor. 11: 3 tells us there is a chain of authority not only in the physical world, but also in the spiritual world. "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
Now anyone who knows biblical theology knows that God the Son is not inferior to God the Father. God the Son is indeed equal to God the Father; they are co-equal and co-eternal. Yet over and over in the word of God we read that Jesus willingly submitted Himself to the authority of His Heavenly Father.
Submission is not a matter of integrity, it is a matter of identity. The Bible makes it plain that men and women are equal to each other in the sight of God. Gal. 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The ground at the foot of the cross is absolutely level. But at the same time there are roles to be fulfilled and the wife is to fulfill the submissive role to the husband.
But there is a reason for this. Verse 22 goes on to say, "submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord." Because there is a divine order to submit, there is therefore a divine obligation to submit. You are to submit to your husband as you would submit to the Lord. In other words, it is the will of God that the wife submit to the leadership of the husband.
Now wives, you have a choice. You can complete your husband or you can compete with your husband; but you cannot do both. If you complete him you will confirm him. But if you compete with him you will cripple him. If you refuse to submit to the authority of your husband let me tell you some problems you will have. First of all, you will have problems with God. Because it is the will of God for you to do it, and you will be rebelling against Him. You will also have problems with your husband. Because it is both his God-given right and God-given desire to lead you and the family.
Let me give you a piece of advice in case you have never gotten married yet, but you're planning on it. You need to ask yourself before you marry a man this question: "Am I willing to submit to the spiritual leadership of this man?" As a matter of fact, it is not a bad idea for any woman to ask herself before she gets married this question: "Why do I want to marry this man?" I heard about a man that was getting the cold shoulder from his wife for a few weeks, and finally he confronted her and said, "Admit it Linda, the only reason you married me is because my grandfather left me $10 million. She said, "Don't be ridiculous. I don't care who left it to you."
But you'll not only have problems with God and with your husband, you will have problems with your children. Because if you teach your children by example to rebel against authority, they, too, will rebel against authority. If they do not see you exercising your role of submission, they will not exercise their role either.
But finally, you will have problems with yourself. Because there is in a Spirit-filled woman the understanding of what God's word teaches and a willingness to submit both to the authority of Scripture and to the authority of the husband. Now you may be sitting there saying, "You don't know my husband. He's a wimp, he's hard to talk to, he's not as spiritual as he should be." I realize all of those things may be true. Irma Bombeck once said that "married women can be divided into two classes—those who have model husbands, and those whose husbands could use a little remodeling."
But think about this. When you get a cold and you have a runny nose, watery eyes, and ringing ears and a splitting headache, one solution you should never ever contemplate is to cut off your head. Well, the Bible says the husband is the head of the household. You may have trouble with your husband. He may not always do things that please you, but the answer is not to cut off your head. Paul goes on to say in verse 24, "Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." You ought to submit to your husband just as the church is to submit to Christ. How does the church submit to Christ?—in everything.
Let me tell you what that means. Unless it is unscriptural, unethical, or ungodly, you ought to submit to your husband. If you wanted to be treated like a queen, crown your husband as king in your home, and without violating conscience or Scripture, submit to him, support him, and strengthen him.
II. Husbands Are To Fulfill A Spiritual Responsibility
Now far more is said to the husband than is said to the wife. Because far more is demanded from the husband than is demanded from the wife. Because far more is expected of the husband than is expected of the wife. Let me give you some news, husbands. It is not easy being a good husband, and the reason is because you are married to a woman. Someone has said, "There are two ways to handle women; unfortunately no one knows either one of them."
But we are told specifically in Marriage 101 exactly what we are to do for our wives. First of all, husbands are to lead their wives. "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (v.23) Now the husband is the head of the wife. Therefore he is to be the leader of the home. But I want to hasten to add I am not talking here about dictatorship. I am not talking here about being a bully. That does not mean that the husband makes all the decisions and the wife has no input.
Let me tell you how Teresa and I have handled our marriage. In our marriage I make all of the big decisions and she makes all of the little decisions. For example: I decide whether or not we are going to invade Iraq. She has no input there. I decide whether or not the University of Georgia should recruit a certain football player. She has no input there. I decide who ought to be the President of the United States. She has no input there. Now she makes all of the little decisions in our marriage. For example: How we are going to spend our money, where we are going on vacation, whether or not we are going to remodel the house etc. I can tell you that arrangement has worked out beautifully for us.
But let me tell you seriously what I mean by leadership. I mean by leadership the way you live before your wife and children, the way you love your wife and children, the way you walk, the way you talk, the way you apply God's word to your own heart and to your own life. I'm talking about Christ-like godly leadership. That's the kind of leadership we are to give to our wives.
But husbands are also to labor for their wives. The Bible says in 1 Tim. 5:8, "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Husbands, you are to provide for your family. It is your primary responsibility, not your wife, to provide the income for your home.
It is not much of a man who forces his wife or pressures his wife to go to work because he wants more money, he wants a bigger house, he wants a nicer car, he wants to satisfy his material lusts on the altar of the welfare of his marriage. The Bible teaches that you, husband, are to be the breadwinner in your home, not your wife.
Now I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong for a woman to work. But I will tell you this: Being a wife and a mother is a fulltime job. I heard about a young husband who said to his wife, "Why don't you make biscuits like my mother used to?" She said, "Why don't you bring home the dough like my Dad used to." May I just say this to you husbands who work and your wife stays at home—the money you make is not your money, it's her money as well. She is an equal partner.
But the real meat of being a husband is found in this statement: Husbands are to love their wives. "Husbands, love yours wives…" (v.25a) Now you are to love your wife, but you are to love your wife the way Christ loves the church. How does Christ love the church?
Well Christ loved the church enough to die for her. "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it." (v.25) Every husband within the sound of my voice ought to ask himself this question right now: "Do I love my wife enough to die for her?" I heard about a man and his wife that were swimming together at a well known resort in the Bahamas, and suddenly the fin of a shark appeared nearby and the lifeguard shouted, "Shark! shark! everybody out of the water!" Well, the woman's husband headed for the shore as fast as he could, leaving her to struggle toward the beach as best she could. When she finally got on dry land she screamed at him, "That was a terrible thing to do, deserting me like that. I was scared to death. Don't you remember when we were married you told me you would face death for me?" He said, "Yes, and I would, but that shark wasn't dead." Well, you ought to love your wife enough to die for her.
But it goes deeper. "...that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish." (vv. 26-27) The Lord Jesus, at this very moment, is making His bride as beautiful as He possibly can. That is exactly what we are to do for our wives; make them beautiful. We are to always make them look good. Never criticize them in public. Never put them down before anyone else. Husbands, if you are not making your wife better, you are making your wife bitter.
Just as Jesus loves us in spite of our faults, and does not dwell on our faults, we ought to love our wives the same way. Husbands, you are to make her better, you are to make her beautiful, you are to grow in the Lord and help her grow in the Lord.
"So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church." (vv.28-29) It doesn't get much stronger than this. What does a man do with his body? He satisfies it. When the body is hungry he feeds it; when the body is thirsty he waters it; when the body is tired he rests it. Likewise, when your wife needs strength, you give her strength; when she needs encouragement you give her encouragement. You meet every single she has at every single opportunity that God gives you.
I'm not an expert as a husband, and my beautiful wife would be glad to tell you about all the faults that I have. But I do know in my heart there are several basic needs a woman has, and if we will meet these basic needs, it will be amazing how your stock in her eyes will go up. First of all, they need our attention. One lady said, "My husband pays so little attention to me that if I died I don't think he would able to identify the body." Many times what a wife needs is just a husband that will give her his ear and his eyes and his full undivided attention.
Secondly, they need our affection. Men, when I talk about affection don't think about the "s" word. I'm talking about just affection—a touch, a hug, a kiss. They need verbal affection. You need to tell them consistently that you love them. One man was very unaffectionate with his wife. She was looking out the window one day and saw a honeymoon couple who were very affectionate living next door to them. Every morning this wife watched as those newlyweds would hug and kiss several times at the front door of their home before the husband would go off to work. In fact, as the husband would walk off to work, many times he would run back up the sidewalk just to plant one more kiss on her. Often the wife would follow the husband all the way to the car where once again he would hug her and give her a long passionate kiss.
Well this lady next door watched this for several days; called her husband over to the window and said, "I want you to watch what this couple is doing." He watched as this man kissed his wife and hugged her at the door; walked down the sidewalk to his car about half way; turned around and came back and gave her another hug and a kiss; walked down to the car and had her follow him as he embraced her again and gave her a big juicy kiss. She looked at him and said, "I want to ask you a question. Why don't you do that?" The husband said, "I hardly know that woman."
Finally, they need our adoration. You ought to constantly brag on your wife. Tell her how beautiful she is. Tell her how much she means to you. Tell her what a great job she does around the house. On Father's Day a teacher had her Sunday School students make a card for their father. She gave the little five-year-old boys all the materials they needed; then suggested they draw something their father liked, like a fishing pole, golf balls, or a pet. One little boy raised his hand and said, "May I draw a picture of my Mom. My Dad likes her better than anything!" That is exactly the way we ought to all like our wives.
Several hundred years ago Martin Luther described a godly and a good marriage this way: "Let the wife make the husband glad to come home, and let him make her sorry to see him leave." When you can do that on a consistent basis, you can know that you are passing Marriage 101.
[1] http//news.excite.com/news/r/990702/15/news-life-marriage
[2] Cited bySBC Life, April 2001, p. 2.
[3] Harris signs bill repealing Head of Household Law, Atlanta Journal, 4-12-83.
[4] Lisa Schlein, Atlanta Journal, January, 1988.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Sermons, by James Merritt
Overview: Paul cautions believers to walk carefully using three contrasts: not as unwise, but as wise (5:15); not as foolish, but with understanding (5:17); and not getting drunk, but being filled with the Spirit (5:18). He further explains this third contrast. At conversion, Christians are sealed with the Spirit (a one-time event explained in 1:13–14) but throughout life are encouraged to be filled with the Spirit (a repeated experience). Three results of being filled with the Spirit are mentioned in 5:19–21: worship, gratitude, and mutual submission. These are distinguishing characteristics of the people of God. In 5:22–6:9, Paul explains how this final characteristic (mutual submission) is applied within the Christian household.
Insight: Household Codes · Three passages in the New Testam…
The Baker Bible Handbook by J. Daniel Hays and J. Scott Duvall, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Using the culturally familiar format of the household code (and Christianizing it in the process), Paul explains mutual submission in three domestic relationships as a mark of Spirit-filled living. In each of the three parallel domestic relationships, the “weaker” party is addressed first. Thus in the first set (5:21–33), wives are instructed to submit to their (own) husbands in everything, as they would to the Lord Jesus (5:22). Paul’s rationale is that just as Christ is head and savior of the church, so the husband is head of the wife (5:23–24). There is nothing surprising here; it is standard cultural wisdom. Yet with tragic irony this text has served for centuries to sanctify the abuse of women within Christ’s church, a travesty occurring in part because interpreters stop interpreting at verse 24.
Paul Christianizes the marital section of the household code not only by introducing the model of Christ and the church but also through what he proceeds to say to husbands. His instructions to them (5:25–33) occupy three times the space he uses for wives, with obvious implications. The entire section is still governed by verse 21: husbands are to submit to their wives. As if that were not enough, the manner of submission, also modeled on Christ and the church, requires a husband to love his wife by giving himself up for her. How this self-sacrifice might look in a particular situation Paul leaves to the imagination.
He also describes the Christlike motivation for husbandly self-giving. As with Christ and the church, the purpose is to foster the wife’s full potential as God’s creation. The entire explanation (5:26–27) revolves around Christ’s plans for humanity’s perfection, but the principle applies equally to how husbands aim to enhance the humanly glory of the person to whom each has joined himself. It is as if a husband’s wife is an extension of his own body (5:28–29), again just as the church is Christ’s body (5:30). This bodily, dual-person identity is already anchored in Genesis 2:24, but Paul regards Christ’s identity with the church as superseding even the law (5:32). Correspondingly implicit in this is the perfecting of husbands: they become Christlike themselves when they, like Christ, die for another.
Whether women have been divinely programmed to submit to a self-denying husband, as if by natural default, is highly debatable. It is just as likely that Paul’s instructions in verses 22–24 are intended to make the best of the sin-warped culture he lived in. In terms of mutual submission, a husband is perhaps just as likely to submit willingly to a wife who genuinely “dies” for him as a wife is to a husband who loves her like this. However that may be, Paul has called for mutual submission (5:33), which at least implies that husbands die to themselves for the sake of their wives, and probably that wives die to themselves for the sake of respecting their husbands. There could hardly be a more profound way to express the home-based lifestyle that promotes “the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (4:3).
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
What motivates the author to move from general admonitions on moral life and corporate worship to specific instructions regarding household relationships? Beare suggests that the arrangement of material follows the conventional pattern of Hellenistic philosophical literature, which concluded its doctrinal exposition with a brief presentation of the social code (p. 716). Another author places the code, particularly this section on husbands and wives, within the context of the ethical instructions that preceded it: “What,” he asks, “was more necessary than to counter immorality with a true doctrine of man and wife?” (Houlden, p. 331).
A third suggestion comes from J. A. Robinson, who sees the code related structurally to the preceding instructions on worship (5:18–20). The church is not a fanatical and disorganized Spirit-filled community; rather, it is regulated by order and the principle of subjection of one member to another (p. 123).
A fourth theory explains the arrangement in Ephesians on the basis of Colossians, which, according to a number of commentators, the author was using as a model. Colossians, likewise, has a section on instruction and worship (3:16–17) before it moves on to discuss “Personal Relations in the New Life.” The differences between the Colossian and Ephesian codes can be accounted for by the specific purpose they have in each epistle.
Finally, there is the principle of submission in 5:21. This statement relates to mutuality within the church but also forms a transition to the section on the household code. Thus, the author states a general principle; now he provides specific examples of how it is to be applied in relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, and masters and slaves.
Beyond these observations, one must rightfully question the purpose for the lengthy exposition on the relationship between husband and wife in this epistle (Ephesians has eleven verses, whereas Colossians has two). Is it the writer’s primary intention to (a) offer domestic guidance regarding the husband-wife relationship (as is the case in 6:1–9 with child-parent and master-slave)? (b) Or is he using the example of husband and wife for an ecclesiological purpose, that is, to portray the nature of the relationship between Christ and the church? (c) Or is he using Christ’s relationship to the church as a prototype for an ideal Christian marriage?
It appears that the author’s primary intention is to emphasize the quality of relationship that should exist between husband and wife. In order to do this properly, and thus bring out the deepest implications of marriage, he resorts to the analogy of Christ and the church. And what could be a more fitting analogy! As Christ is head over the church, the husband is the head of his wife (5:23); as the church submits itself to Christ, wives submit themselves to their husbands (5:24); husbands are to love their wives with the same sacrificial love as Christ, who feeds and takes care of the church, his body (5:25, 29). The Lordship of Christ and his relation to the church epitomize the ideal union between husband and wife.
But though this appears to be the author’s main purpose, the analogy works in the opposite direction as well. Throughout the epistle he has been expounding on the nature of the church and how Christ, the Head, is related to his body, the church. Marriage gives him an illustration—albeit imperfect—of how his readers can understand his ecclesiology. Thus, the church is under Christ’s authority just as the wife is under the authority of her husband (5:23); Christ loves and cares for the church in the same way that a husband ought to love his wife (5:28). The analogy has both a domestic and an ecclesiological function.
Barth, although he agrees with these two foci of this section, does not think that either is foremost in the author’s mind. Marriage, along with the other problems raised in Ephesians (e.g., sin, death, ethnic divisions, institutions), comes under the power and riches of God’s grace. “The intention of Paul is to show that ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’ gives husband and wife the basis, the strength, and the example which they need in order to live in that ‘peace to [or by] which God has called’ them (1 Cor. 7:15). The ‘peace’ between God and man, Jews and Gentiles, of which Paul spoke in Eph. 2:14–16 shall be extended into every house and praised by the conduct of husband and wife” (Eph. 4–6, p. 655).
The subjects of husband-wife relationships, the equality of women, and the role of women in the church continue to be debated and controversial issues today. With respect to Ephesians, several things must be noted: First, the author is talking about husband-wife relationships, not male-female differences and the equality, rights, roles, and so on of women. Some of those issues are dealt with in other epistles, such as 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Second, the relationship between husband and wife is not modified or qualified by arguments used elsewhere in Scripture, such as the order and glory of creation (1 Cor. 11:3–16) or the sin of Eve (1 Tim. 2:9–15). Neither is submission demonstrated by outward things such as women covering their heads in public worship (1 Cor. 11:3–16) or remaining silent in the presence of men during worship (1 Cor. 14:33–38). The submission taught in Ephesians is a mutual subordination between husband and wife that is based on the prototype of Christ and his church; Christ is the example who determines the qualities of headship and submission. Third, the teaching with respect to husband and wife—as well as the other categories in the code—must be seen within the larger context of the position of women and marriage in the first century (cf. disc. in chap. 18 on Colossians; Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 655–62).
The need for order lies behind all the instruction that encompasses the domestic code. The authors of the NT did not want Christianity to be misunderstood by society or to have new Christians feel that their freedom in Christ meant the abolition of current standards regulating domestic life. But in Ephesians the motive goes beyond “good order.” The household rules illustrate the principle of subordination that is essential to the unity and harmony within the body of Christ. The church becomes a pattern for all social order.
5:22–24 Colossians exhorts wives to be submissive (hypotassō) to their husbands because it is the proper thing for Christians to do (3:18). Submission is required on the basis of the socially acceptable norms of the day. In Ephesians, wives are called to submission for a different reason, namely, the divine order to creation that appears to be at the heart of the entire passage. This principle of “creationism” is assumed rather than explicitly stated, as it is, for example, in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“the head [kephalē] of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”).
The husband is the head of the wife. What is significant in Ephesians is that the so-called hierarchical order of creation is qualified profoundly: First, the submission of the wife to her husband is exercised within the wider principle of mutual subordination. Members within the body of Christ are to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). This, however, does not abolish the concept of authority: “The principle of mutual subordination is not applied so as to destroy the complementary principle of authority, without which there can be no ordered social life among men” (Beare, p. 717). Second, the motive for submission is placed within the context of the wife’s relationship to the Lord—wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. Those who submit must do so as if they were submitting to Christ.
Third, submission is regulated by the divine pattern of Christ’s relationship to the church. Those to whom submission is given likewise must find the pattern of their obedience and conduct in Christ. Hence the reciprocal exhortations: wives, submit as to the Lord … “just as Christ loved the church” (5:25).
From these principles it becomes obvious that a husband’s authority is regulated by Christ’s example and the principle of love. Authoritarianism, self-assertion, and self-centeredness have no place in a marriage based on these principles. Submission is not “obedience,” for the word “obey” (hypakouō) is used only for children and slaves (6:1, 5). When a husband relates to his wife out of love (agapē), there will be no problems with respect to submission or obedience.
The author is aware of the limits of his analogy, because no human, fallible husband can even approximate the extent and quality of love that Christ has for the church. This seems to be the case when he states that Christ is head of … his body, of which he is the Savior (5:23). Only Christ can be considered the savior of the body because of his work for and relationship to it. Nevertheless, “The sacrificial concern of the Lord for the salvation of the Church should have a parallel, even if at a much lower level, in the loving and sacrificial concern of the husband for the welfare of his wife” (Foulkes, p. 156).
5:25 Lest husbands come to believe that Ephesians 5:21–33 is a document legitimizing their authority to restrict the freedom of their wives, it should be noted that the admonition for husbands to love their wives puts a greater responsibility on them. Agapē means to subordinate one’s own interests, pleasures, and personality for the benefit of someone else. In fact, Christ’s love, which the husband is to model, was completely sacrificial—Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. The church is considered as the sum total of persons for whom Christ died (Rom. 4:25; 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20). Loved (past tense) refers to some definite action in the past, such as the cross.
5:26 The sense of the corporate nature of the church is carried over into the two verses describing the washing of the church and its subsequent results. At first glance, 5:26, 27 appear as an interpolation, because the thoughts of 5:25 and 5:28 join so nicely together. Yet, there is no textual evidence that these verses are of questionable origin; nor is there any suggestion that they do not fit into the context of the writer’s discussion on Christ and the church. It appears that the mention of Christ’s death for the church (5:25) triggered thoughts the author had about baptism. Perhaps he was thinking of Jesus’ death as a baptism in which his followers are to share (Mark 10:38, 39). Christian baptism is a baptism into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11, 12, 20).
Beyond the relationship between Christ’s death and baptism, another analogy appears to be at work, namely, the nuptial or ceremonial bath that a bride took before marriage. In the cultures of that day it was customary for a bride to take this bath before the marriage day. Following the bath, the bride, clad in her lovely garments, would present herself before the bridegroom. Does the author conceive of baptism as a bridal bath that sanctifies the church? Does Paul have this imagery in mind when he writes to the Corinthians, “I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him,” (2 Cor. 11:2)? On the basis of context, it seems more probable that when the author speaks of Christ giving himself up for the church (5:25), he thinks of baptism as the rite that symbolizes this death and by which the church is made clean by the washing in water.
There are a number of reasons why the thoughts in verse 26 are associated with baptism: First, there is the imagery of washing and cleansing (cleansing her by the washing with water). The cleansing of the church, which here is viewed collectively or corporately, took place when its individual members were baptized. The readers would have been aware of the baptismal teaching in the early church that conceived of baptism as a moral washing (John 13:10; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:20, 21).
Second is the relationship between baptism and the word (lit., “the washing of water by/in the word”). Baptism, in the context of the NT, was accompanied by a spoken word. Here it could mean either (a) some kind of gospel utterance; (b) a confession from the candidate in which he or she expresses faith in the Lord; (c) some prebaptismal words of instruction; or (d) a baptismal formula, such as baptism into the name of Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11) or into the names of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19). In spite of all these possibilities, it would be safe to conclude that word refers to a confession or formula that accompanied baptism.
The new, or perhaps unusual, idea of Ephesians at this point is that the entire church receives this bath. This idea of a corporate baptism may have originated in the preceding discussion on the unifying elements of the Christian church (4:4–6) in which, among other things, the writer mentions the one body (4:4) and the one baptism (4:5). Although baptism ordinarily is received by the believer, its application to the whole church is justified on the basis of the church’s corporate and unified nature.
5:27 The reason or the ultimate purpose behind the baptism of the church is now stated: to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. This is where the analogy of the bride and the bridal bath—if it is implied—breaks down. In a marriage the bride presents herself to the bridegroom; it would be inappropriate for the bridegroom to present the bride to himself (Mitton, p. 201). Here Christ takes the initiative by cleansing the bride (church) through baptism and presenting it to himself “free from all disfigurements or deformities” (Mitton, p. 204; Mitton also draws attention to the parallel between individual and corporate holiness in 1:4 and 5:27). The husband is to love his wife “not just because of the beauty he finds in her, but to make her more beautiful. Christ sees the Church in all her weaknesses and failures, and yet loves her as His body and seeks her true sanctification” (Foulkes, p. 160).
Baptism has a three-dimensional focus: It is a past event grounded in the redemptive work of Christ (“he gave himself up for her,” i.e., the church); it continues to be a present reality by which individuals are baptized into the body of Christ and by which they are cleansed. Moreover, it has an ethical and eschatological function (in order to present). Sanctification and cleansing lead to the church’s ultimate glorification and splendor.
5:28 Even though husbands cannot love their wives in the same way that Christ demonstrated his love for the church, the divine model is still in the author’s mind: Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. It appears that the husband, based on the principle that in marriage the two will become one (5:31), should regard his wife as his own body. He will, therefore, love his wife just as he loves his own body. Union and intimacy of this kind seem to agree with the phrase, he who loves his wife loves himself. Thus it is true that husband and wife are “complementary parts of one personality” (Beare, p. 725).
This interpretation fits the drift of the author’s thought better than one that sees these statements as encountering “prudential” or “pragmatic self-interest,” as Mitton, for example, suggests: “It is easier to do what is right and good if one can see at the same time that it will produce something beneficial to ourselves” (p. 205). What we have, instead, is a fusion of the bride image into the body image (Houlden, p. 334). Thus, “As the Church is Christ’s body, so in a true sense the wife is the husband’s body. Through her he extends his life” (Westcott, p. 85).
5:29 By prefacing 5:29 and 30 with After all, the NIV understands these verses as a commentary on 5:28. The love that a husband has for his own body and, consequently, for his wife is illustrated in practical ways: First, he feeds and cares for it. Once a husband has come to think of his wife as his own flesh he will feed (lit., “nourish,” ektrephō and care for (lit., “cherish,” thalpō) her as Christ does with respect to his body, the church. On the human level this is true because no one ever hated his own body. (The Greek uses the term “flesh” rather than body, probably because it anticipates the quotation in 5:31 from Gen. 2:24, which states that the two shall become one “flesh.”)
5:30 The second illustration is through being members of his body (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15—“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?”). The meaning of this phrase must be seen in relation to the previous statement on Christ’s love and care for the church: we are members of his body; therefore, Christ “feeds” and “cares for” us. Although there does not appear to be any conscious application of this truth to the readers, it would remind them of Christ’s concern for each one of them. Foulkes finds a helpful analogy from the vine and the branches in John 15: “As in the divine purpose the wife becomes part of the very life of her husband, and he nourishes and cherishes her, even so the Lord does to us as members of Himself, part of His own life that he has joined to Himself” (Foulkes, p. 161).
5:31 The OT verse (Gen. 2:24) from which the author has been drawing his imagery is finally quoted. It confirms the thoughts that he has been expounding on the relationship between husband and wife in marriage. Prior to marriage, a man and a woman are bound in an intimate relationship with their parents; but the marriage bond transcends that former bond by uniting the two as one flesh. For the author, this verse appropriately expresses the intimacy, unity, and, according to his thoughts, the identity of the husband and wife within marriage—a condition undoubtedly created by their sexual union (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16, 17, where Gen. 2:24 is used with reference to an immoral relationship with a prostitute).
Some of the older commentaries suggest that this verse has a secondary reference to Christ and how he left his heavenly home in order to be joined with his bride, the church. Moule, for example, writes: “We may reverently infer that the Apostle was guided to see in that verse a divine parable of the Coming Forth of the Lord, the Man of Men, from the Father, and His present and eternal mystical union with the true Church, His Bride” (p. 143; cf. other examples in Abbott, pp. 173, 174). Such an interpretation, however, is highly speculative and presses the analogy beyond its intended purpose as an illustration of unity.
The significance of this quotation and the context from which it is taken cannot be overstated. In Scripture, it is used as the main argument against polygamy, sexual immorality, and divorce. No one verse speaks more strongly for the sacredness and permanency of the marriage bond and for fidelity within marriage.
5:32 As appropriate as Genesis 2:24 is in describing the essence of marriage, and as overcome as the author is by the beauty of such a relationship, he still is preoccupied with thoughts about Christ and the church. Consequently, he sees in the oneness of husband and wife a great revelation that, for him, applies to Christ and the church. “The husband’s position as head and his duty of sacrificial love and devoted care for his wife are but pictures, imperfect, but the best that this life can offer, of Christ as Head, and of His love, self-sacrifice and concern for His church. The dependence of the wife on her husband and her duty of submission are a picture of how the Church should live and act towards her divine Lord” (Foulkes, p. 162).
The phrase this is a profound mystery is a translation of the Greek to mystērion touto mega estin (“this mystery is great!”). Earlier in this epistle, mystery referred to God’s plan for humankind, which had been hidden but now has been revealed (1:9; 3:3–6, 9; cf. also 6:19). Here it refers to a deep insight or a profound truth that is revealed. A mystery, in this context, is not a secret but a revelation—the union between Christ and the church.
One cannot help but notice that the references to mystery in Ephesians have unity as a theme. The mystery revealed in 3:3–6 unites Jew and Gentile into the body of Christ; in 5:32, one application of the mystery is the union between Christ and the church. In the former case there is the creation of one new people in union with himself (Christ); in the latter, the two become one. Stott notes that in Ephesians the metaphors of the church—“the body, the building and the bride—all emphasize the reality of its unity on account of its union with Christ” (p. 231). The Latin rendering of sacramentum for mystery does not legitimize viewing marriage as a sacrament (cf. Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 744–49).
The precise meaning of the author’s thoughts is by no means easy to determine—as is obvious from the variety of translations and interpretations (for a list, see Mitton, pp. 207, 8). Some commentators, in spite of the apostle’s application of Genesis 2:24 to Christ and the church, believe that it refers primarily to human marriage as the great mystery. Others concede that though that may be true in itself, the phrase but I am talking about (egō de legō) or, “it also applies,” indicates that the marriage union illustrates something even more meaningful. Beare paraphrases such thinking in the following way: “The mystery of the union of man and wife into one flesh is of far-reaching importance and clearly points itself toward some transcendental, eternal reality. I for my part take it to be a symbol of the union of Christ and the church” (Beare, p. 727).
5:33 Lest the readers be too caught up in the mystical aspects of these thoughts, and in spite of that application to Christ and the church in 5:32, the author brings them back to reality: However, each one of you.… By doing this, he returns to the more practical and human considerations that initiated the discussion about husband and wife (5:22ff.): Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Respect is a translation of the Greek phobeō, which, as in 5:21, also has the meaning of reverence. It is best understood as “awe,” such as an individual would show before God (cf. Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 662–68 for a detailed explanation). Barth protests the equation of “fear” with awe, reverence, or respect, insisting that it be given an eschatological meaning as well, that is, “conduct that heeds the crisis of the present, the last judgment, and the ultimate triumph of Christ” (Eph. 4–6, p. 667).
This section of the household code ends in much the same way as it began—submission, reverence, and love. Throughout, the author has fluctuated between two analogies: At times the husband-wife relationship served an ecclesiological function by illustrating Christ’s relationship to the church; at other times, the Christ-church analogy illustrated a domestic ideal. The result is that one has a deeper appreciation and understanding of both relationships, even though the author’s original intention was to enrich the understanding of marriage.
Additional Notes
In addition to the disc. and bibliography on the household codes in §§ 18–21 on Colossians 3:18–4:1, see F. Stagg, “The Domestic Code and Final Appeal: Ephesians 5:21–6:24,” RevExp 75 (1979), pp. 541–52. On the use of traditional material in this section, P. Sampley, And the Two Shall Become One Flesh: A Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21–33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971); Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 652–55; Mitton, pp. 208–10.
5:23 For questions regarding the legitimacy of translating head (kephalē) as “authority,” see the article by B. and A. Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?” Christianity Today, October 5, 1979, pp. 23–29. The main point the Mickelsens make is that head “does not mean ‘boss’ or ‘final authority’ … but source or origin … or beginning.”
5:26–27 For arguments pro and con on the bridal bath, see R. Batey, “Jewish Gnosticism and the ‘Hieros Gamos’ of Eph. v.21–33,” NTS 10 (1963), pp. 121–27; C. Chavasse, The Bride of Christ (London: Faber & Faber, 1939); Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the New Testament. Barth argues against a baptismal interpretation of 5:26, 27, in his Eph. 4–6, pp. 687–700.
5:31 On the use of Gen. 2:24 in Eph. 5:31, 32, see A. T. Lincoln, “The Use of the OT in Ephesians,” JSNT 14 (1982), pp. 16–57, esp. pp. 30–36. For additional thoughts on marriage, singleness, and individuality, Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 700–738; F. Stagg, “The Domestic Code and Final Appeal: Ephesians 5:21–6:24,” RevExp 76 (4, 1979), pp. 547–48.
5:32 Discussion on the concept of “sacred marriage” (hieros gamos) in Jewish and Hellenistic thought can be found in Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 738–44; Beare, pp. 726–28; and Batey, “Jewish Gnosticism and the ‘Hieros Gamos’ of Eph. v. 21–33.”
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Arthur G. Patzia, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
The physical defect on a sacrificial animal that makes it an unacceptable offering to the Lord (Lev. 22:1725), or the physical defect on a priest that disqualifies him from performing certain priestly functions (Lev. 21:17–24). In the NT, Christ is the once-for-all sacrificial lamb without blemish or defect. In Christ, Christians are presented to God as holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22; Heb. 9:14; 1Pet. 1:19).
Of the 206 bones that compose the adult skeletal structure, the Bible mentions only a few: rib (Gen. 1:2122), hip (Gen. 32:25), skull (Judg. 9:53), jaw (Isa. 30:28), and legs (John 19:31–33). Nevertheless, while bones could be isolated, anatomical description tended more toward a holistic sense so that bones could refer to physical and psychological collapse in laments (Jer. 23:9) or to the entire person as a corpse (Gen. 50:25; 1Sam. 31:13).
Overwhelmingly, however, anatomical “units” are used metaphorically for human emotions or attitudes: shame becomes “decay in [the] bones” (Prov. 12:4), fear makes “bones shake” (Job 4:14), and a sad spirit “dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22). The phrase “bone of my bones” is an idiom, a kinship formula used to describe unity and close relatives (Gen. 2:23; cf. 2Sam. 5:1).
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).
The nature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning of one word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a rich array of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are those metaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church, five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom of God, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and the body of Christ.
The people of God. Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in the covenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (see Exod. 6:67; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer. 7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28; Acts 15:14; 2Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus, the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras who responded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin rests exclusively in God’s grace.
The kingdom of God. Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping of the two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete. The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and the second aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the age to come has broken into this age, and now the two exist simultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because the church also exists in the tension that results from the overlapping of the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as the foreshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition: first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, the church is not equal to the kingdom of God.
The church and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after the resurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about the church. However, there are early signs of the church in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general, Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in that he gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted the beginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant. More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in two passages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesus promised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition, thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of the church overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that the kingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks the intimate association between the church and the kingdom. The second passage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlike the Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
The church and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimately related as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does not equate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christians preached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g., Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is the instrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt. 16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church become the keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
The eschatological temple of God. Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in the future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9). Jesus hinted that he was going to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John 2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of the fulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited the church, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36). Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit in the Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1Cor. 3:16–17; 2Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; see also Gal. 4:21–31; 1Pet. 2:4–10). However, that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in the preceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for the church to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fully accomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In the meantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform their sacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb. 13:15; 1Pet. 2:4–10).
The bride of Christ. The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (see Isa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied to Christ and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph. 5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to him (2Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia the official wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9; 21:1–2).
The body of Christ. The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to the Pauline literature and constitutes one of the most significant concepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1Cor. 12:12–27; Eph. 4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within the church, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body of Christ is the last Adam (1Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of the end time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage of the image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that the church, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to go spiritually. It is not yet complete.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:617). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).
With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).
God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).
A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).
While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.
The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).
The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).
God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.
A mystery entails knowledge that is disclosed to some but withheld from others. Nothing is mysterious to God (Heb. 4:13), and he alone understands the full purpose of his will (Job 38:140:24; Isa. 46:10), but he also condescends to reveal portions of his will to those whom he chooses (John 16:15).
Jesus’ parables make known the character and future of God’s coming kingdom to his chosen servants, while also concealing it from those outside the circle (Matt. 13:18–23). Paul, by contrast, used “mystery” to refer to the disclosure of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity—namely, the inclusion of Gentiles within “Israel” (Rom. 11:25). This plan, foreshadowed in the OT but nevertheless hidden in essentials, had only recently been fully revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 1:9; 1Tim. 3:16; cf. 1Pet. 1:10–12). The gospel message is therefore the revelation of this mystery, the proclamation of the truth about Jesus Christ, now made public to the world (Eph. 3:3–9).
Closely related to honor and respect and often translating the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence is directed primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’s sanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name (Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers, the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverence for God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance (Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2Cor. 7:1), and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship (Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may win over unbelievers (1Pet. 3:2).
Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to its prevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. The cosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:67; cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in his cosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).
Water is also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associated with the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple are described as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel 3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowing from beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, where it brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8). The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is also illustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples. Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably the location of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple at Arad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, are located close to freshwater springs. The Gihon spring in the City of David may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf. Gen. 2:13).
This OT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regarding eternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to be the source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone who thirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17). This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 7:38–39).
Water is also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It is extensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT, the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of the believer (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1Pet. 3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).
Finally, the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water (Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9; 4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Most important, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).
“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
The physical defect on a sacrificial animal that makes it anunacceptable offering to the Lord (Lev. 22:17–25), or thephysical defect on a priest that disqualifies him from performingcertain priestly functions (Lev. 21:17–24). In the NT, Christis the once-for-all sacrificial lamb without blemish or defect. InChrist, Christians are presented to God as holy and without blemish(Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19).
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).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
In both Testaments “head” can refer to theliteral head of the physical body or be symbolic of leadership andthe source of provision.
Thephysical head played a significant role in Jewish and Christiancustoms. Cutting off an opponent’s head was a symbol of victory(1Sam. 17:46; 1Chron. 10:9–10). The consecration ofpriests and kings was done by anointing the head with oil (Exod.29:7; Lev. 8:12; 1Sam. 10:1). Contrition and shame weredisplayed by covering one’s head (2Sam. 15:30; Jer.14:3). Grief was expressed by casting dust or ashes on the head (Job1:20; 2Sam. 13:19; 15:32; Lam. 2:10; Ezek. 27:30; Rev. 18:19)or shaving one’s own head (Job 1:20; Jer. 16:6). The head wasthe place for receiving blessing, as when Jacob laid his hands onManasseh and Ephraim to bless them (Gen. 48:14), or guilt, as whenSolomon declared that the guilt over the blood of the two Israelitecommanders murdered by Joab would rest “on the head of Joab andhis descendants forever” (1Kings 2:33). Lifting up thehead was associated with the giving of life in terms of success (Gen.40:13; Judg. 8:28; Ps. 27:6).
Becauseof the prominent physical role of the head as the topmost andpreeminent part of the body, it was often used as a symbol forleadership and the source of provision. Ancient medical writers suchas Hippocrates and Galen viewed the head as the leading member of thebody. Ancient political writers adapted the idea and applied it tomilitary and political leaders, such as Nero, who was called the“head” of Rome. For the political writers in particular,the emphasis often was on the power and authority of the head.
Examplesof this use of “head” as leader and source of provisionin the Bible include Judg. 10:18, where the leaders of Gilead declarethat whoever launches the attack against the Ammonites will be thehead of the inhabitants of Gilead. After the elders successfullyappeal to Jephthah, the people make him “head and commander”over them (Judg. 11:11). Christ’s ruling function is emphasizedin Col. 2:10, where he is called the “head over every power andauthority.” In Eph. 4:16 Paul states that Christ as the head isthe one “from [whom] the whole body ... grows andbuilds itself up in love.”
Inthe NT, Paul’s use of the metaphor for the relationship betweenChrist and the church and husbands and wives is particularlysignificant. When Paul applies the metaphor to Christ and the church,he implies that Christ provides both leadership to the body as wellas the nourishment needed for its continued growth. Thus, in Col.2:19 the head is the one “from whom the whole body ...grows as God causes it to grow,” and in Eph. 5:23–24Christ is “the head of the ... body,” the oneto whom the church submits.
Pauluses the head/body metaphor in reference to Christ with someflexibility. Whereas Christ is the head of the church, his body, inEphesians and Colossians, in 1Cor. 11:3 his headship is part ofa series in which God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head ofman, and man is the head of woman. In Eph. 1:22 he is head over theentire universe.
InEph. 5:21–33 the head/body metaphor is applied to therelationship between husbands and wives, and specifically incomparison with Christ and the church’s relationship as headand body. As Christ is the head of the church, so is the husband thehead of the wife. Thus, both provide leadership and growth to theirrespective bodies. It is important to note that the husband’srole as head is defined in terms of loving his wife and bringing herto holiness. The husband’s headship does not consist of anarbitrary power over his wife, especially one based on his owninterests and whims. Rather, it is a sacrificial leadership thatreflects Christ’s love for the church. It is a leadership inwhich he gives his life for his wife as Christ gave his life for thechurch and nourishes her by providing what is most beneficial forher. See also Head of the Church.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
A theologically significant concept for the apostle Paul. Heused the Greek word melos (“member” or “body part”)in two contexts. First, Paul identified Christians as members ofChrist’s body (Rom. 12:4–5; 1Cor. 12:27; Eph.5:30). Just as all the members of the human body are critical to itsfunctioning, all Christians, whether apparently significant or not,are critical to the church’s functioning (1Cor.12:12–27). Second, Paul spoke of members of the body asinstruments that could be presented either for good or for evil (Rom.6:13, 19; Col. 3:5). In the non-Christian, these members are home tothe “sinful passions” (Rom. 7:5), and the “law ofsin” within the members can hold prisoner even the Christian(7:23).
Inthe Greco-Roman world the title “savior” (sōtēr)often was ascribed to deities. It carried with it the sense of rescueand preservation for subjects of a particulargod. The LXX also uses the term, sometimes with reference to God asSavior (especially in the Prophets), and sometimes referring todeliverers such as the judges.
Inthe NT, God is also called “Savior” (Luke 1:47). He willrescue his people from sin. At the birth of Jesus, the angelannounced that the one born will be a “Savior, who is theMessiah [Christ], the Lord” (Luke 2:11 NRSV). The Samaritansbelieved in Jesus as the Savior (John 4:42). Peter connected theexaltation and the majesty of Christ to his salvific work (Acts5:31). In Paul’s thinking, Christ is Savior of the body and isalso the model for the husband-wife relationship (Eph. 5:23). Alsofor Paul, the believer is to anticipate the return of thisnow-exalted Savior (Phil. 3:20). Of special note are the frequentreferences to “God our Savior” (e.g., 1Tim. 1:1),“Christ Jesus our Savior” (e.g., Titus 1:4), or someother such formula. John notes the Father has sent the Son to beSavior of the world (1John 4:14).
A flaw or blemish causing a person or object to be culticallyimpure in some way. Certain white or reddish spots on a person’sbody could indicate an infectious skin disease, rendering anIsraelite ritually unclean (Lev. 13). Only animals without defectwere acceptable as offerings to God (Exod. 12:5; Num. 19:2; Deut.17:1). Figuratively, Christ’s followers are to be “spotless,”morally pure and thus qualified for fellowship with God (2Pet.3:14) and a pure church, free from “stain or wrinkle or anyother blemish” (Eph. 5:27). Jesus “offered himselfunblemished to God” (Heb. 9:14), the perfect sacrifice for sinas “a lamb without blemish or defect” (1Pet. 1:19).
The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.
Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.
Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).
Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.
1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.
2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.
3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.
4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).
Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).
Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).
Ablutions include a variety of practices found primarily inthe OT through which persons washed in order to participate in themost important activities of the community, usually worship. Althoughterms referring to washing cover a variety of purposes, such ascleansing the hands or bathing (Gen. 18:4; Ruth 3:3; Acts 16:33;2 Pet. 2:22), when one speaks of ablutions, the focus is uponthe necessary tasks of cleansing after suffering separation fromparticipation in the worship of the assembly because of some impurity(Deut. 21:1–9).
Sometimesablutions were performed as a means of preparing a person for anactivity of heightened importance. The priests of the OT underwentsuch cleansings, though they were not impure in the usual sense ofthe word (Exod. 30:19–21). The imagery communicated by suchpractices expressed the extreme holiness necessary to serve God andhis people. Indeed, the sense of holiness and purity that pervadedthe sacred rites of the OT was a major motivation for all levels ofablutions. For these heightened moments, however, the biblical recordgoes into extra detail concerning the process by which one could bewashed. Special care was taken to avoid recontamination of thepriest, the sacred instruments, or the camp itself, which wouldinterfere with or render useless the rite that had been carried out(Lev. 16:4, 24, 26, 28). As with all ceremonial rites, however, thebiblical interest is focused more upon the attitude and the heart ofthe worshiper than the rite itself. The integrity and the holiness ofthe participant were the true test of standing pure before God, notthe ritual of cleansing (Ps. 24:3–6; Isa. 1:11–16).
Inthe NT, the pattern of emphasis on the inner person begun in the OTreceived further expression. In the book of Mark, one of the conflictpassages recounts an encounter between Jesus and the Phariseesregarding the extent of ritual cleansing necessary in one’slife (7:1–16). Jesus proclaimed, in full harmony with the OT,that it has always been the character of the individual that made aperson clean or unclean, and that the washings of old were symbolicof that status, not determinative of it. Despite this, it seems thatJewish Christians of the first century chose to continue the practiceof ritual washings. The writer of Hebrews argues that the use of suchis both an illustration of the pure life (10:22) and a practice thatmay be considered unnecessary in light of what Christ hadaccomplished through his perfect work (6:2; 9:10).
Generallyspeaking, the source of washing for such ceremonial cleansing had tobe “living water”; that is, it had to be moving. Thiscould be obtained by pouring the water, by visiting a dedicatedceremonial bath, or by carrying out the washing in a location thatalready had moving water, such as a river. There is little question,based upon the similarities of early baptismal practices and theceremonial baths uncovered at Qumran and elsewhere, that NT baptismdraws many of its intentions and expressions from the OT ablutions.As such, the same observations about washings made above can be drawnconcerning baptism. It is symbolic of an internal reality (Eph.5:26); it is intended as a means of expressing community between theparticipant and the greater body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); andit is reflective of a higher calling of Christ to live holy lives(Acts 10:47).
Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to itsprevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. Thecosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:6–7;cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in hiscosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa.66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen.7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).
Wateris also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associatedwith the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple aredescribed as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowingfrom beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, whereit brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8).The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “theriver of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from thethrone of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is alsoillustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples.Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably thelocation of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple atArad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, arelocated close to freshwater springs. The Gihon Spring in the City ofDavid may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf.Gen. 2:13).
ThisOT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regardingeternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to bethe source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone whothirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17).This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up toeternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit inthe believer (John 7:38–39).
Wateris also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It isextensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT,the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of thebeliever (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26,31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1Pet.3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).
Finally,the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water(Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9;4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Mostimportant, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and theyobey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Ephesians 5:22-33
is mentioned in the definition.
Ablutions include a variety of practices found primarily inthe OT through which persons washed in order to participate in themost important activities of the community, usually worship. Althoughterms referring to washing cover a variety of purposes, such ascleansing the hands or bathing (Gen. 18:4; Ruth 3:3; Acts 16:33;2 Pet. 2:22), when one speaks of ablutions, the focus is uponthe necessary tasks of cleansing after suffering separation fromparticipation in the worship of the assembly because of some impurity(Deut. 21:1–9).
Sometimesablutions were performed as a means of preparing a person for anactivity of heightened importance. The priests of the OT underwentsuch cleansings, though they were not impure in the usual sense ofthe word (Exod. 30:19–21). The imagery communicated by suchpractices expressed the extreme holiness necessary to serve God andhis people. Indeed, the sense of holiness and purity that pervadedthe sacred rites of the OT was a major motivation for all levels ofablutions. For these heightened moments, however, the biblical recordgoes into extra detail concerning the process by which one could bewashed. Special care was taken to avoid recontamination of thepriest, the sacred instruments, or the camp itself, which wouldinterfere with or render useless the rite that had been carried out(Lev. 16:4, 24, 26, 28). As with all ceremonial rites, however, thebiblical interest is focused more upon the attitude and the heart ofthe worshiper than the rite itself. The integrity and the holiness ofthe participant were the true test of standing pure before God, notthe ritual of cleansing (Ps. 24:3–6; Isa. 1:11–16).
Inthe NT, the pattern of emphasis on the inner person begun in the OTreceived further expression. In the book of Mark, one of the conflictpassages recounts an encounter between Jesus and the Phariseesregarding the extent of ritual cleansing necessary in one’slife (7:1–16). Jesus proclaimed, in full harmony with the OT,that it has always been the character of the individual that made aperson clean or unclean, and that the washings of old were symbolicof that status, not determinative of it. Despite this, it seems thatJewish Christians of the first century chose to continue the practiceof ritual washings. The writer of Hebrews argues that the use of suchis both an illustration of the pure life (10:22) and a practice thatmay be considered unnecessary in light of what Christ hadaccomplished through his perfect work (6:2; 9:10).
Generallyspeaking, the source of washing for such ceremonial cleansing had tobe “living water”; that is, it had to be moving. Thiscould be obtained by pouring the water, by visiting a dedicatedceremonial bath, or by carrying out the washing in a location thatalready had moving water, such as a river. There is little question,based upon the similarities of early baptismal practices and theceremonial baths uncovered at Qumran and elsewhere, that NT baptismdraws many of its intentions and expressions from the OT ablutions.As such, the same observations about washings made above can be drawnconcerning baptism. It is symbolic of an internal reality (Eph.5:26); it is intended as a means of expressing community between theparticipant and the greater body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); andit is reflective of a higher calling of Christ to live holy lives(Acts 10:47).
The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinctelements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he orshe has the right to tell others what to do and decide how mattersshould be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she hasnot only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the powerto control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. Whenthe angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistressand submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority(Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same senseof authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So Itook the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, andappointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod.18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “Itwill not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire andachieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense ofauthority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewiseregarding the one who “overcomes” in the book ofRevelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rulethe nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Bothideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in thatcontext.
Theauthority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, beingevidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’sGospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with thecrowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who hadauthority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29).Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10),natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32),culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitatethe dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallelpassages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains.John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge(5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and togrant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority ofChrist over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme ofthe book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for thesake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority inopposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the GreatCommission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18;cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right andas power always to coincide in the end.
Onthis same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first toGod and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be donein good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord”throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over thosewhom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20).For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on theCorinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor.10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over”others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant mustrespect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19).Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph.5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slavesmust yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), andlaypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).
Respectfor authority also extends to secular governments, whatever thecharacter of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to killDavid (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would killSaul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons todistrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he issubjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands thechurch to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God hasestablished them, so that “whoever rebels against the authorityis rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secularrulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authorityeven when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they doprevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks ofrevolutionary enthusiasm.
“Go marry a prostitute” are the first words thatthe prophet Hosea hears from God in the book of Hosea (1:2 NET). Histragic marriage with Gomer provides an analogy for the relationshipof God with his people Israel. God loves, confronts, pleads, becomesangry, and seeks reconciliation in this book containing words ofjudgment as well as hope.
Thebook of Hosea is one of the twelve Minor Prophets, but among thesebooks Hosea is preeminent. It is the longest and appears firstcanonically, and it was one of the first of all the prophetic booksto be written down. The emotive poetry depicting God’sheartbreak over the trauma of his broken relationship with his peopleis hardly matched anywhere else in Scripture.
HistoricalBackground
Thefirst verse sets the book into the reigns of JeroboamII ofIsrael (784–748 BC) and Uzziah (769–733 BC), Jotham(758–743 BC), Ahaz (733–727 BC), and Hezekiah (727–698BC) of Judah. It is difficult to pinpoint when it was during thereign of JeroboamII that Hosea began his ministry or how farinto the reign of Hezekiah he served. Scholars generally date Hosea’sministry between 760 and 720BC.
DuringJeroboam’s reign, Israel expanded its borders (2Kings14:25, 28) due to the relative weakness of its two traditionalnorthern enemies, Assyria and Aram. This expansion led to economicprosperity for the upper classes but oppression for the lowerclasses, which was condemned by the prophet Amos. Shortly after thedeath of Jeroboam, Tiglath-pileserIII came to the throne ofAssyria in 744 BC, and as Assyrian influence began to increase inIsrael, political stability for the nation declined. The reigns ofIsrael’s final rulers were characterized by chaos, as six kingsreigned over Israel in less than one generation (2Kings15:8–31; 17:1–6). Jeroboam’s son Zechariah waskilled by Shallum, who was killed by Menahem, who was succeeded byhis son Pekahiah, who was killed by Pekah, who was killed by Hoshea,who was exiled by Assyria.
Hosea’soracles generally target the northern kingdom, with over fortyreferences to “Israel” scattered throughout the book(e.g., 1:4–6), but the tribe of Ephraim is also mentioned overthirty times (e.g., 4:17; 5:3, 5). As the most influential northerntribe, Ephraim is often used synonymously for Israel, but some of thereferences to Ephraim may be due to the fact that after Assyriaconquered and exiled most of Israel in 733 BC, Ephraim was all thatremained until its destruction in 722BC.
Outline
I.Historical Setting (1:1)
II.Hosea’s Family (1:2–2:1)
III.God’s Family (2:2–23)
IV.God Calls Hosea to Bring Gomer Back (3:1–5)
V.The First Set of Messages (4:1–11:11)
VI.The Second Set of Messages (11:12–14:9)
Message
Themessage of the book of Hosea is God’s; his voice dominates thebook, whether he is speaking to the prophet or to the entire nation.While markers of God’s speech are concentrated in the firstthree chapters (1:2, 4, 6, 9; 2:1, 13, 16, 21; 3:1), clearly God isspeaking in most of the remainder of the book (4:1; 11:11). Hosea’sfirst-person perspective appears explicitly only as he narrates howGod has told him to go and bring back his wife, Gomer (3:1–5).Hosea may be speaking as the nation is called to return to God(6:1–3; 14:1–3), or these calls may be coming from thepeople. God also uses quotes from the people to illustrate his points(8:2; 9:7; 10:3).
God’sinitial commission to Hosea to marry the prostitute Gomer serves asthe frame on which to hang the content of the book. God’sprimary message is that the people of Israel have been unfaithful tothe covenant that they had initially established at Sinai after hehad delivered them from enslavement in Egypt. God had said that hewould be their God, and Israel would be his people (Exod. 6:7), sothey had made a covenant that the people promised to obey (24:1–8).Just as Hosea’s heart has been broken by the unfaithfulness ofhis wife, God has been devastated by Israel’s adulterousbehavior. Gomer gives birth to three children: Jezreel (“GodSows”), Lo-Ruhamah (“Not Pitied”), and Lo-Ammi(“Not My People”). The name of each child hassignificance in the book: “Jezreel” because God is goingto judge Jeroboam’s house for the blood shed by hisgreat-grandfather Jehu in the valley of Jezreel (see 2Kings9:36–37; 10:6–7, 11); “Not Pitied” becauseGod will no longer show mercy to the nation; “Not My People”because he is no longer their God and they are no longer his people.The themes of sowing (Hos. 2:23; 8:7; 10:12), God showing pity (2:1,4, 23; 14:3), and Israel as the people of God (2:1, 23; 4:6, 8, 12;6:11; 11:7) reappear throughout the book.
Thebook cycles through patterns of accusation, punishment, and hope. Godaccuses his people of being unfaithful to their covenant. Thisunfaithfulness takes two primary forms: worship of foreign idols andreliance on foreign nations. Despite their commitment to follow God’slaws, they have blatantly broken the first two commandments: have noother gods, and make no idols (Exod. 20:3–4). The first rulerof the northern kingdom of Israel, JeroboamI, had constructedtwo calves of gold, one in Dan and one in Bethel (1Kings12:25–33), similar to the one made by Aaron in the wilderness(Exod. 32:4). JeroboamI’s golden calves have survivedbeyond the reign of JeroboamII and contributed to Israeliteapostasy during the period of the entire northern monarchy. The bookof Hosea specifically condemns calf worship (8:5–6; 10:5),which even took the form of kissing the calves (13:2). Israel’sidolatry also involved consulting blocks of wood instead of God(4:12), joining themselves to idols (4:17), constructing idols ofsilver and gold (8:4), and sacrificing to idols (10:5).
BecauseGod wants Israel to be exclusively committed to him, he has forbiddenthem from making treaties with other nations (Exod. 34:12, 15; Deut.7:2; 23:6). The book of Hosea describes their disobedience to thiscommand in their dealings with Assyria and Egypt. God accuses them ofdepending on Assyria (Hos. 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 12:1) and declares thatthe calf they worship will be exiled to Assyria (10:6), and Assyriawill become their king (11:5). God reminds Israel of the Egyptiandeliverance in the past (2:15; 11:1; 12:13; 13:4), he condemns theirreliance on Egypt in the present (7:11, 16; 12:1), and he proclaimsthat they will return to Egypt in the future (8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5).The “return to Egypt” should be interpreted notgeographically but figuratively, as a return to bondage and exile,which will be performed by Assyria first in 733 BC and finally in722BC.
Israel’ssins provoke God’s anger (5:10; 8:5; 13:11) and prompt him todeclare that he will punish his people (1:4; 2:13; 4:9; 5:2, 9; 8:13;9:7, 9; 10:10). The punishment sent by God specifically targetsIsrael’s king, though it is difficult to be certain which one.Jehu’s house is the subject of the first royal condemnation(1:4–5), which may refer to the assassination of Zechariah,JeroboamII’s son (2Kings 15:8–10). The kingis called to listen to the judgment because it pertains to him (Hos.5:1). Some of Israel’s kings have already fallen (7:7), whichmay refer to the period of monarchical instability after JeroboamII.Eventually, Israel’s king will be completely cut off (3:4;10:3, 7, 15; 13:10), which happened in 722 BC, when Assyria destroyedthe capital Samaria.
Inthe midst of accusation and punishment, the book also includes wordsof hope, specifically that Israel will return to its God, and theirrelationship will be restored. Three times the people are called toreturn to God: in the beginning (2:14–23), in the middle(6:1–3), and at the end of the book (14:1–3). God viewshis people not only as his wife but also as his children (11:1–4),and he promises that because of his compassion his anger will cease(11:8–9) and he will lead his children as they return to theirhomes (11:11). In a surprising twist, immediately after telling Hoseato give the three children names signifying judgment (1:4–9),God declares that Israel will be called the “children of theliving God,” and the children’s names change to “Ammi”(“My People”) and “Ruhamah” (“Pity”)(1:10–2:1 NET). God also promises that the people of Israelwill be as numerous as the sand of the seashore (1:10), recalling hispromise to Abraham (Gen.22:17).
Bothparental and marital imagery from the book of Hosea appear elsewherein Scripture. While in Hosea the line “out of Egypt I called myson” (11:1) refers to God bringing his “children”out of Egyptian bondage, Matthew shows how it also describes earlyevents in Jesus’ life as his family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15).Jeremiah graphically describes the sins of Judah as adultery andfaithlessness (Jer. 3:1–25). Paul compares the relationshipbetween a husband and a wife to that of Christ and the church (Eph.5:23–24). The book of Revelation concludes by describing howthe residents of the new Jerusalem will be adorned like a bride forher husband, and they will be his people and he will be their God(Rev. 21:2–9; 22:17).
By its title, Song of Songs claims to be the most sublime song of all. The history of its interpretation also reveals that it may be the most misunderstood song as well. The reader of this book is dazzled by its intensity and honest expression of desire for intimate relationship. No wonder that early theologians who thought that the body was only a temporary casing for the all-important spirit felt that this book could not be talking about what it appeared to be talking about. Thus, for example, when the woman describes the man as a sachet of myrrh lodged between her breasts (1:13), this had to be a reference to Christ spanning the OT and the NT (so Cyril of Alexandria). But over time this book could not be suppressed by such interpretive strategies. Today most readily acknowledge that Song of Songs is love poetry that articulates human desires as well as our joys and worries.
Genre, Structure, and Outline
As implied by the preceding paragraph, Song of Songs is not an allegory. It is love poetry, in which a man and a woman express their deepest longings and desires to each other. They want to be in each other’s passionate embrace. This book celebrates love between a man and a woman.
Some interpreters believe that Song of Songs is a drama or at least tells a story of a particular love relationship. Although there are almost as many different suggestions of a story as there are advocates of the so-called dramatic approach, two main types emerge. One approach believes that there are two characters, a lover and his beloved, and the plot entails their growing relationship, sometimes following the pattern of courtship, engagement, marriage, honeymoon, and so forth. Occasionally this plot is given a historical background, usually with Solomon as the man (thanks to the superscription in 1:1) and a woman who goes by the name of the “Shulammite” (6:13 [curiously, apparently a feminine form of the name “Solomon”]). On the other hand, other interpretations introduce yet a third character, an unnamed shepherd boy, who is the woman’s true love. Thus, the story is that of a love triangle. Solomon is trying or has succeeded in adding the woman to his harem, but she retains her true love toward the shepherd boy. Thus, Song of Songs is the story of true love’s triumph over power and wealth.
Other interpreters point out that if it is difficult to determine how many characters are in this supposed plot or the exact contour of the story, then interpreters must be reading too much into the book to make it work. After all, there is no narrator in the book providing narrative guidelines to the reader. Indeed, there are not even indications of who is speaking when (thus modern translations insert italicized text headings such as “Beloved,” “Lover,” and “Friends” to identify speakers).
Such interpreters argue that Song of Songs does not tell a story but rather is a kind of “love Psalter” containing a number of different love poems. In other words, it is an anthology, a collection, of love poems united by a consistency of character and imagery as well as the occasional recurrent refrain. The book is truly a “Song [composed] of [many] Songs.” The exact number of poems in this anthology can be debated and is unimportant for their interpretation. The important point is that readers do not force connections between poems that are not there. However, the following division, after the superscription (1:1) into twenty-three poems may not be far off the mark.
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)
III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)
IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)
V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)
VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)
VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)
VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)
IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)
X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)
XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)
XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)
XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)
XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)
XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)
XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)
XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)
XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)
XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)
XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)
XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)
XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)
XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)
XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)
Date and Authorship
The conclusion that Song of Songs is a collection of love poems has implications for the date and authorship of the book. It is true that the superscription (1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and this connection must be taken seriously because there is no indication that the superscription is not a part of the canonical final form of the book. In light of a similar superscription in the book of Proverbs, however, this does not mean that Solomon wrote the entire book or that it is about him. Indeed, Solomon’s track record in love is dubious both in the book (Song 8:11–12) and outside it (1Kings 11:1–13). Perhaps as in Proverbs, he is considered the fountainhead of the composition of the book, and like Psalms and Proverbs, the book came into existence over a lengthy period of time and as a result of several composers. If so, the final form bears the mark of a single editor who brought it all together at an unknown date within the period of the formation of the OT.
Theological Message
Song of Songs celebrates love between a man and a woman. It reminds the people of God that intimate relationship is a divine gift that should be enjoyed. Although joy is indeed the dominant note of the book, the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that has its disappointments (so begins the poem in 5:2–6:3). Accordingly, the woman makes sure that the young girls who are watching and looking at her understand that it is important not to hurry love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).
But we must not read Song of Songs in isolation from the rest of the canon. This book describes the man and the woman in the garden as naked and enjoying each other. How can the reader not think of the garden of Eden? God created a man and a woman and established marriage as a source of mutual joy (Gen. 2:23–25). The next chapter, however, narrates the fall, where the rebellion against God results in alienation not only between God and Adam and Eve, but also between Adam and Eve. Their estrangement results in their efforts to cover themselves from the gaze of the other and their ejection from the garden. The poems of Song of Songs, then, may be seen as the story of the “already but not yet” redemption of sexuality.
Last, the broader canon frequently uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between God and his creatures (e.g., Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3). In other words, the more we learn about intimate marital relationships, the more we learn about our intimate relationship with God. Thus, Song of Songs may be read in a way that deepens our understanding of God and his love toward his people (cf. Eph. 5:21–33).
Continuing Significance
The opening chapters of Genesis describe human beings as creatures who were created for relationship, relationship with God to be sure, but also relationship with other people. Genesis 2:18–25 narrates the origin of the institution that formalizes the most intimate of human relationships, that between a man and a woman in marriage. The story continues in Gen. 3 on a tragic note when, because of sin, a barrier is erected between the man and the woman. Song of Songs poetically celebrates the redemption of the marriage relationship and encourages couples to grow closer to each other. The poems are not a how-to manual for courtship or intimate behavior, but they invite couples to cultivate their own love language and intimacies.
In both Testaments of Scripture, marriage is used toillustrate the relationship between God and his chosen people. Isaiahand Jeremiah portray Israel as the bride of Yahweh, sometimes toemphasize his love for her, sometimes to lament her unfaithfulness tohim. Isaiah says that Yahweh will one day rejoice over Israel “asa bridegroom rejoices over his bride” (Isa. 62:5; cf. 61:10).Jeremiah expresses God’s disappointment that his bride (Israel)has lost her first love for him and even forgotten him (Jer. 2:2,32). Hosea uses this metaphor repeatedly to proclaim Yahweh’sundying love for his adulterous wife, the people of Israel (Hos.1–3).
Inthe NT, the church becomes the bride of Christ, both in Paul’sletters and in the book of Revelation (Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17). Paulcompares the church to a bride expressly in Eph. 5, where the love ofChrist for his church sets an example for ordinary husbands: theymust love their wives “as Christ loved the church,” thatis, sacrificially (v. 25). In Revelation the church adornsherself with righteous acts for the sake of Christ, her groom (19:6).Further along in Revelation, the new Jerusalem itself becomes the“bride” of Christ, inhabited by his saved people, thechurch (21:9–10).
The“bride” metaphor communicates powerfully in thesecontexts because of the duties that ancient marriages presupposed.Husbands were to lead, protect, and provide for their wives, and Goddoes this perfectly for his people. He leads them safely out ofEgypt, through the wilderness, and on to victory in battle. They areblessed in faithfulness, and God is slow to anger in spite of theiradultery against him. When his people need a savior, he provides theBridegroom-Messiah, through whom he gives lasting forgiveness, peace,and rest. On the other hand, the church must honor herSavior-Husband, who finds in her obedience the greatest beauty.
By its title, Song of Songs claims to be the most sublime song of all. The history of its interpretation also reveals that it may be the most misunderstood song as well. The reader of this book is dazzled by its intensity and honest expression of desire for intimate relationship. No wonder that early theologians who thought that the body was only a temporary casing for the all-important spirit felt that this book could not be talking about what it appeared to be talking about. Thus, for example, when the woman describes the man as a sachet of myrrh lodged between her breasts (1:13), this had to be a reference to Christ spanning the OT and the NT (so Cyril of Alexandria). But over time this book could not be suppressed by such interpretive strategies. Today most readily acknowledge that Song of Songs is love poetry that articulates human desires as well as our joys and worries.
Genre, Structure, and Outline
As implied by the preceding paragraph, Song of Songs is not an allegory. It is love poetry, in which a man and a woman express their deepest longings and desires to each other. They want to be in each other’s passionate embrace. This book celebrates love between a man and a woman.
Some interpreters believe that Song of Songs is a drama or at least tells a story of a particular love relationship. Although there are almost as many different suggestions of a story as there are advocates of the so-called dramatic approach, two main types emerge. One approach believes that there are two characters, a lover and his beloved, and the plot entails their growing relationship, sometimes following the pattern of courtship, engagement, marriage, honeymoon, and so forth. Occasionally this plot is given a historical background, usually with Solomon as the man (thanks to the superscription in 1:1) and a woman who goes by the name of the “Shulammite” (6:13 [curiously, apparently a feminine form of the name “Solomon”]). On the other hand, other interpretations introduce yet a third character, an unnamed shepherd boy, who is the woman’s true love. Thus, the story is that of a love triangle. Solomon is trying or has succeeded in adding the woman to his harem, but she retains her true love toward the shepherd boy. Thus, Song of Songs is the story of true love’s triumph over power and wealth.
Other interpreters point out that if it is difficult to determine how many characters are in this supposed plot or the exact contour of the story, then interpreters must be reading too much into the book to make it work. After all, there is no narrator in the book providing narrative guidelines to the reader. Indeed, there are not even indications of who is speaking when (thus modern translations insert italicized text headings such as “Beloved,” “Lover,” and “Friends” to identify speakers).
Such interpreters argue that Song of Songs does not tell a story but rather is a kind of “love Psalter” containing a number of different love poems. In other words, it is an anthology, a collection, of love poems united by a consistency of character and imagery as well as the occasional recurrent refrain. The book is truly a “Song [composed] of [many] Songs.” The exact number of poems in this anthology can be debated and is unimportant for their interpretation. The important point is that readers do not force connections between poems that are not there. However, the following division, after the superscription (1:1) into twenty-three poems may not be far off the mark.
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)
III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)
IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)
V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)
VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)
VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)
VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)
IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)
X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)
XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)
XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)
XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)
XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)
XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)
XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)
XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)
XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)
XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)
XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)
XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)
XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)
XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)
XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)
Date and Authorship
The conclusion that Song of Songs is a collection of love poems has implications for the date and authorship of the book. It is true that the superscription (1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and this connection must be taken seriously because there is no indication that the superscription is not a part of the canonical final form of the book. In light of a similar superscription in the book of Proverbs, however, this does not mean that Solomon wrote the entire book or that it is about him. Indeed, Solomon’s track record in love is dubious both in the book (Song 8:11–12) and outside it (1Kings 11:1–13). Perhaps as in Proverbs, he is considered the fountainhead of the composition of the book, and like Psalms and Proverbs, the book came into existence over a lengthy period of time and as a result of several composers. If so, the final form bears the mark of a single editor who brought it all together at an unknown date within the period of the formation of the OT.
Theological Message
Song of Songs celebrates love between a man and a woman. It reminds the people of God that intimate relationship is a divine gift that should be enjoyed. Although joy is indeed the dominant note of the book, the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that has its disappointments (so begins the poem in 5:2–6:3). Accordingly, the woman makes sure that the young girls who are watching and looking at her understand that it is important not to hurry love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).
But we must not read Song of Songs in isolation from the rest of the canon. This book describes the man and the woman in the garden as naked and enjoying each other. How can the reader not think of the garden of Eden? God created a man and a woman and established marriage as a source of mutual joy (Gen. 2:23–25). The next chapter, however, narrates the fall, where the rebellion against God results in alienation not only between God and Adam and Eve, but also between Adam and Eve. Their estrangement results in their efforts to cover themselves from the gaze of the other and their ejection from the garden. The poems of Song of Songs, then, may be seen as the story of the “already but not yet” redemption of sexuality.
Last, the broader canon frequently uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between God and his creatures (e.g., Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3). In other words, the more we learn about intimate marital relationships, the more we learn about our intimate relationship with God. Thus, Song of Songs may be read in a way that deepens our understanding of God and his love toward his people (cf. Eph. 5:21–33).
Continuing Significance
The opening chapters of Genesis describe human beings as creatures who were created for relationship, relationship with God to be sure, but also relationship with other people. Genesis 2:18–25 narrates the origin of the institution that formalizes the most intimate of human relationships, that between a man and a woman in marriage. The story continues in Gen. 3 on a tragic note when, because of sin, a barrier is erected between the man and the woman. Song of Songs poetically celebrates the redemption of the marriage relationship and encourages couples to grow closer to each other. The poems are not a how-to manual for courtship or intimate behavior, but they invite couples to cultivate their own love language and intimacies.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
The KJV and RSV term for the recipient of the letter of2John (v.1). Not much is known about the identity of this“lady chosen by God” (NIV), though there are severalpossibilities. The phrase may refer to a personal friend or aprominent church member of John’s acquaintance, along with herbiological children. More probably, however, John uses the phrase asa metaphor for a particular church community and its members, a usageconsistent with other NT images of the church (see Eph. 5:25–27;cf. Rev. 21:2).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
The English verb “fornicate” comes from a Latinterm describing the vaulted or arched structure of a ceiling, seenespecially in the basem*nts of buildings. Because prostitutes in theancient world met clients under “fornicated” arches, thesexual usage of the term naturally followed. To fornicate was tovisit a brothel, in the first instance. Later the term acquired themore general sense of illicit sexual activity. Thus, in the KJV,words such as “fornication” and “fornicate”are chosen to translate the NT Greek term p*rneia, which refersgenerically to sexual sin. Adulterers, hom*osexuals, pedophiles, andadults engaged in extramarital affairs were guilty of p*rneia,regardless of more specific labels that may apply.
Genesis1:27 traces human sexuality back to the choice of God himself, whomade male and female human beings. He might have done otherwise, buthe created human beings as men and women, who complement each other’sunique characteristics. The command “Be fruitful and increasein number” (Gen. 1:28) presupposes an attraction between menand women, leading to sexual activity and consequent reproduction.Adam could therefore say of Eve, “This is now bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23), given how closely herelates to her and vice versa. The two become “one flesh”through sexual activity, as Paul’s use of Gen. 2:24 makesclear. In 1Cor. 6:16 the apostle argues that men who consortwith prostitutes become one flesh with them, based on what Gen 2:24implies; in this sense, sexual activity unifies. Thus, from abiblical standpoint, there is no such thing as “casual sex.”
InEph. 5:22–33 Paul argues that an analogy exists between theoneness of flesh that husbands and wives experience and the union ofChrist with his bride, the church. Both relationships put servantleadership on display; and as such, a healthy marriage exposesfornication for the fraud that it is. Fornication divorces physicalunity from the multidimensional oneness that husbands and wives areprivileged to share.
Quiteapart from the physical defects of p*rneia—most evident in suchcases as hom*osexuality, bestial*ty, and pedophilia—it is alsodiseased at the social level. For these deviations are, of necessity,exploitative and sterile, and none of them could involve sacrificialleadership tending toward the holiness of husbands and wives. Theyare merely predatory. We therefore are not surprised to find theBible forbidding hom*osexuality (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26–27),bestial*ty (Lev. 18:23), rape (Deut. 22:23–29), adultery (Exod.20:14), and various forms of sexual adventurism (e.g., 1Cor.6:18–20; 1Thess. 4:3–8), including extramaritalintercourse (Deut. 22:13–21).
Although the Bible is dominated by a patriarchal perspective,as one would expect from the ancient Near East, there is also avaluing of women that comes to the surface. Although this falls shortof what we would call “gender equality” today, the Bibledoes make overtures in that direction. Already in the Genesiscreation story, men and women are described as the two halves ofhumanity, who together participate in the mandate to fill and subduethe earth (Gen. 1:26–28). Eve is created from the side of Adam,indicating equality in their very beings (2:21–23).
Inhis own ministry, Jesus includes women in ways that were unusual forhis context. In first-century Palestine, learning from spiritualteachers was a privilege reserved exclusively for men. However, inthe story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), Jesus commendsMary for breaking her expected role as a woman in order to follow himand learn at his feet. Martha, however, receives a sharp rebuke forallowing domestic duties to hinder her discipleship. Jesus’first resurrection appearance is to women in all of the Gospels, eventhough the testimony of a woman was generally not considered valid inlegal matters in first-century Palestine (although rabbinicl*terature suggests it was considered valid testimony for a woman toconfirm a man’s death). Jesus takes particular efforts toelevate the position of women, despite a possible tarnishing of hispublic image.
Theconcern for greater gender equality extends into the rest of the NT.Paul says that in Christ all are one regardless of ethnicity, status,or gender (Gal. 3:28). Paul also refers to women as coworkers in thegospel (Rom. 16:3) and as deacons (16:1). Although frequently citedin order to support a hierarchal family structure, the householdcodes (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10;1Pet. 2:18–3:7) are a step toward gender equality in theGreco-Roman culture, since secular household codes usually placedresponsibilities on wives, not husbands. That Paul givesresponsibilities to husbands is a significant shift toward amutuality of devotion and obligation.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
The KJV and RSV term for the recipient of the letter of2John (v.1). Not much is known about the identity of this“lady chosen by God” (NIV), though there are severalpossibilities. The phrase may refer to a personal friend or aprominent church member of John’s acquaintance, along with herbiological children. More probably, however, John uses the phrase asa metaphor for a particular church community and its members, a usageconsistent with other NT images of the church (see Eph. 5:25–27;cf. Rev. 21:2).
An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.
Theologyof Marriage
Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.
First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.
Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.
Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.
Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.
Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.
Marriagein the Old Testament
TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.
Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.
TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).
Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).
Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.
Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).
Marriagein the New Testament
Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.
Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).
TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).
SymbolicUse of Marriage
Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.
TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.
Theologyof Marriage
Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.
First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.
Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.
Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.
Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.
Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.
Marriagein the Old Testament
TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.
Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.
TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).
Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).
Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.
Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).
Marriagein the New Testament
Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.
Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).
TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).
SymbolicUse of Marriage
Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.
TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).
When God creates humans, he pronounces them “verygood/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to bemagnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27).Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelmingbeauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend thisparadise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply amechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been aboutcompletion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).
Althoughthe Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity andfemininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctionsbetween the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders areexplicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).
hom*osexualintercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9;1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev.18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’screated order.
Nakedness
“Nakedness”is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4;Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous withshame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26;Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1Cor.12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic(Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters ananimal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sinand death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have noshame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).
Exposingnakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28,35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touchingor seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev.18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace tocover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To eventalk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen.9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).
Marriageand Adultery
Althoughdamaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate humanrelationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage isdefined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, notjust a promise made in private. The couple separate from theirparents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Oncethe marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. Theycannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of thecontract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This iscelebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for hisdeparture and return (John 14:1–3).
Paulcommands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen.24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7).Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, thougholder women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4).Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command thatcan be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has nocontrol. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his lifefor his people.
Theecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs,which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiomof marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num.5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).
Thefirst year of marriage is especially important and is protected byexemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).
Whena man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of thatpart of the family estate can result in her marrying a man fromanother family and so alienating that land. This can be resolvedeither by the injustice of eviction or by the device of leviratemarriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marriesthe widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’sname and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).
Concubinesare wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and theirmarriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).
Rapeof a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not thevictim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by bothparties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with noblame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting hermarry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod.22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right totake the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman ofadultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).
Prostitutionis an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden(Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning isheightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transformingeach believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).
Originally,marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abrammarried his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num.26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to bloodrelationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30;cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).
Polygamyoccurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is neverexplicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so asto restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as lessthan satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam.13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory forthose who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).(See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)
Self-Controland Purity
Theviolation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11;Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than justphysical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf.James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. Thisestablishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) andthe availability of appropriate options (1Cor. 7:2, 5, 9).Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is aboutfailure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.
Sexualmisconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25).Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out ofconcern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modestyin dress (1Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another uprather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.
Godalways provides the believer with what is necessary to resisttemptation and make the right choices (1Cor. 10:13).Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is toteach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face suchchallenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).
Thegospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective.Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, callingforth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospelcall will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier toone’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill theearth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better toremain single (1Cor. 7, esp. v.26). This is also a giftof God (1Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment ofthe gospel commission.
When God creates humans, he pronounces them “verygood/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to bemagnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27).Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelmingbeauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend thisparadise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply amechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been aboutcompletion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).
Althoughthe Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity andfemininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctionsbetween the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders areexplicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).
hom*osexualintercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9;1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev.18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’screated order.
Nakedness
“Nakedness”is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4;Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous withshame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26;Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1Cor.12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic(Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters ananimal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sinand death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have noshame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).
Exposingnakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28,35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touchingor seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev.18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace tocover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To eventalk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen.9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).
Marriageand Adultery
Althoughdamaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate humanrelationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage isdefined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, notjust a promise made in private. The couple separate from theirparents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Oncethe marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. Theycannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of thecontract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This iscelebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for hisdeparture and return (John 14:1–3).
Paulcommands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen.24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7).Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, thougholder women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4).Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command thatcan be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has nocontrol. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his lifefor his people.
Theecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs,which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiomof marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num.5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).
Thefirst year of marriage is especially important and is protected byexemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).
Whena man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of thatpart of the family estate can result in her marrying a man fromanother family and so alienating that land. This can be resolvedeither by the injustice of eviction or by the device of leviratemarriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marriesthe widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’sname and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).
Concubinesare wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and theirmarriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).
Rapeof a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not thevictim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by bothparties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with noblame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting hermarry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod.22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right totake the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman ofadultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).
Prostitutionis an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden(Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning isheightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transformingeach believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).
Originally,marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abrammarried his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num.26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to bloodrelationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30;cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).
Polygamyoccurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is neverexplicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so asto restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as lessthan satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam.13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory forthose who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).(See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)
Self-Controland Purity
Theviolation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11;Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than justphysical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf.James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. Thisestablishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) andthe availability of appropriate options (1Cor. 7:2, 5, 9).Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is aboutfailure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.
Sexualmisconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25).Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out ofconcern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modestyin dress (1Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another uprather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.
Godalways provides the believer with what is necessary to resisttemptation and make the right choices (1Cor. 10:13).Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is toteach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face suchchallenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).
Thegospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective.Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, callingforth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospelcall will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier toone’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill theearth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better toremain single (1Cor. 7, esp. v.26). This is also a giftof God (1Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment ofthe gospel commission.
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
By its title, Song of Songs claims to be the most sublime song of all. The history of its interpretation also reveals that it may be the most misunderstood song as well. The reader of this book is dazzled by its intensity and honest expression of desire for intimate relationship. No wonder that early theologians who thought that the body was only a temporary casing for the all-important spirit felt that this book could not be talking about what it appeared to be talking about. Thus, for example, when the woman describes the man as a sachet of myrrh lodged between her breasts (1:13), this had to be a reference to Christ spanning the OT and the NT (so Cyril of Alexandria). But over time this book could not be suppressed by such interpretive strategies. Today most readily acknowledge that Song of Songs is love poetry that articulates human desires as well as our joys and worries.
Genre, Structure, and Outline
As implied by the preceding paragraph, Song of Songs is not an allegory. It is love poetry, in which a man and a woman express their deepest longings and desires to each other. They want to be in each other’s passionate embrace. This book celebrates love between a man and a woman.
Some interpreters believe that Song of Songs is a drama or at least tells a story of a particular love relationship. Although there are almost as many different suggestions of a story as there are advocates of the so-called dramatic approach, two main types emerge. One approach believes that there are two characters, a lover and his beloved, and the plot entails their growing relationship, sometimes following the pattern of courtship, engagement, marriage, honeymoon, and so forth. Occasionally this plot is given a historical background, usually with Solomon as the man (thanks to the superscription in 1:1) and a woman who goes by the name of the “Shulammite” (6:13 [curiously, apparently a feminine form of the name “Solomon”]). On the other hand, other interpretations introduce yet a third character, an unnamed shepherd boy, who is the woman’s true love. Thus, the story is that of a love triangle. Solomon is trying or has succeeded in adding the woman to his harem, but she retains her true love toward the shepherd boy. Thus, Song of Songs is the story of true love’s triumph over power and wealth.
Other interpreters point out that if it is difficult to determine how many characters are in this supposed plot or the exact contour of the story, then interpreters must be reading too much into the book to make it work. After all, there is no narrator in the book providing narrative guidelines to the reader. Indeed, there are not even indications of who is speaking when (thus modern translations insert italicized text headings such as “Beloved,” “Lover,” and “Friends” to identify speakers).
Such interpreters argue that Song of Songs does not tell a story but rather is a kind of “love Psalter” containing a number of different love poems. In other words, it is an anthology, a collection, of love poems united by a consistency of character and imagery as well as the occasional recurrent refrain. The book is truly a “Song [composed] of [many] Songs.” The exact number of poems in this anthology can be debated and is unimportant for their interpretation. The important point is that readers do not force connections between poems that are not there. However, the following division, after the superscription (1:1) into twenty-three poems may not be far off the mark.
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)
III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)
IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)
V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)
VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)
VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)
VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)
IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)
X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)
XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)
XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)
XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)
XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)
XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)
XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)
XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)
XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)
XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)
XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)
XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)
XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)
XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)
XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)
Date and Authorship
The conclusion that Song of Songs is a collection of love poems has implications for the date and authorship of the book. It is true that the superscription (1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and this connection must be taken seriously because there is no indication that the superscription is not a part of the canonical final form of the book. In light of a similar superscription in the book of Proverbs, however, this does not mean that Solomon wrote the entire book or that it is about him. Indeed, Solomon’s track record in love is dubious both in the book (Song 8:11–12) and outside it (1Kings 11:1–13). Perhaps as in Proverbs, he is considered the fountainhead of the composition of the book, and like Psalms and Proverbs, the book came into existence over a lengthy period of time and as a result of several composers. If so, the final form bears the mark of a single editor who brought it all together at an unknown date within the period of the formation of the OT.
Theological Message
Song of Songs celebrates love between a man and a woman. It reminds the people of God that intimate relationship is a divine gift that should be enjoyed. Although joy is indeed the dominant note of the book, the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that has its disappointments (so begins the poem in 5:2–6:3). Accordingly, the woman makes sure that the young girls who are watching and looking at her understand that it is important not to hurry love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).
But we must not read Song of Songs in isolation from the rest of the canon. This book describes the man and the woman in the garden as naked and enjoying each other. How can the reader not think of the garden of Eden? God created a man and a woman and established marriage as a source of mutual joy (Gen. 2:23–25). The next chapter, however, narrates the fall, where the rebellion against God results in alienation not only between God and Adam and Eve, but also between Adam and Eve. Their estrangement results in their efforts to cover themselves from the gaze of the other and their ejection from the garden. The poems of Song of Songs, then, may be seen as the story of the “already but not yet” redemption of sexuality.
Last, the broader canon frequently uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between God and his creatures (e.g., Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3). In other words, the more we learn about intimate marital relationships, the more we learn about our intimate relationship with God. Thus, Song of Songs may be read in a way that deepens our understanding of God and his love toward his people (cf. Eph. 5:21–33).
Continuing Significance
The opening chapters of Genesis describe human beings as creatures who were created for relationship, relationship with God to be sure, but also relationship with other people. Genesis 2:18–25 narrates the origin of the institution that formalizes the most intimate of human relationships, that between a man and a woman in marriage. The story continues in Gen. 3 on a tragic note when, because of sin, a barrier is erected between the man and the woman. Song of Songs poetically celebrates the redemption of the marriage relationship and encourages couples to grow closer to each other. The poems are not a how-to manual for courtship or intimate behavior, but they invite couples to cultivate their own love language and intimacies.
Spousal abuse is most succinctly defined as mistreatment ofone’s marriage partner through physical or emotional means. Thesource of abuse can be traced to the fall, as both partners strugglefor control of the relationship (Gen. 3:16b). As such, abuse is anexpression of a relational problem with God as well as with one’sspouse.
Becauseabuse is rooted in the desire to exploit another, it can never beunderstood as consistent with the biblical understanding of marriage.Marriage is expressed in Scripture as a covenant between twoindividuals who were intended to work together as persons who“correspond” to each other and are “one flesh”(Gen. 2:18 NET; 2:24). The exploitation inherent in abuse is alsocounter to the ideas of mutual submission and of each person in amarriage belonging to the other. Neither person is to be driven byselfish motivations (1Cor. 7:3–5; Eph. 5:21). Ultimately,abuse is counter to the Christian message because it cannot be anexpression of the nature of love (1Cor. 13) or the fruits ofthe Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). Although abuse can be perpetratedupon either the husband or the wife, Scripture takes special care toinstruct the husband to be gentle in relation to his wife, calling onhim to treat her as Christ does the church and to be mindful of hissignificant role for the wife’s well-being (Eph. 5:28–31;1Pet. 3:7).
The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.
Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.
Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).
Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.
1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.
2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.
3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.
4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).
Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).
Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
Ceremonies marking entry into marriage. In the Bible,weddings initiate the formation of new households with the blessingof family and community.
OldTestament
Inthe OT, weddings were important to the patriarchs and to Israelbecause the new couple was expected to produce children to helpfulfill the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2; 17:6; 22:15–18; Ruth4:11–13; Isa. 65:23). Heirs were also the assurance that aman’s name remained eternally with Israel, so much so that if aman died childless, his brother was obligated to wed the widow andproduce children in his name (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–10).Moreover, weddings assured that property was kept within families andtribes and also transferred in an orderly way from one generation tothe next (Num. 36:1–12; Ruth 4:5; Ps. 25:13).
Multiplewives were allowed in the OT (Gen. 30:26; Deut. 21:15; 1Sam.1:2; 2Sam. 5:13; 1Kings 11:3), as were multipleconcubines, who had official standing in the household, though lowerthan that of wives. Weddings usually were associated with a manpublicly taking a wife; he acquired concubines with less fanfare(Gen. 16:1–3; 30:3–5; Judg. 19:1, 3).
OTweddings included certain distinctive elements. The bridegroom or hisfather paid a bride-price, or dowry, to the father of thebridegroom’s prospective wife (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16–17;1Sam. 18:25). The bridegroom had a more central role than thebride. He emerged from a chamber or tent to claim his wife (Ps. 19:5;Joel 2:16), who, in the case of a royal wedding, may have processedto him (Ps. 45:13–15). Both he and the bride were adorned (Song3:11; Isa. 49:18; 61:10; Jer. 2:32); the woman was also veiled (Gen.24:65; 29:23, 25; 38:14, 19; Song 4:1, 3; Isa. 47:1–3). Theirwedding was the occasion of much rejoicing and feasting (Gen. 29:22;Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11) and lasted seven days (Gen. 29:27;Judg. 14:17). The main event was their sexual union (Isa. 62:5),which occurred on the first night (Gen. 29:23; Ruth 4:13). Unless shehad been a widow, the bride was presumed to be a virgin on herwedding night, and evidence of her virginity, a bloodstained cloth,was retained as proof (Deut. 22:13–19). Virginity was essentialto a previously unmarried bride; a woman who had been raped orotherwise engaged in premarital sexual relations was deemed defiledand unmarriageable to any but the first man with whom she hadintercourse (Deut. 22:21; 2Sam. 13:1–20). The importanceof this underpins the shock value of the book of Hosea (see esp.1:2), an extended metaphor that presents Israel as a prostitutenevertheless pursued by Yahweh as her husband.
NewTestament
TheNT continues to testify to many of these wedding traditions,significantly including the gathering of community (Matt. 22:2; John2:1–2) in joyful celebration (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34;John 2:9–10). Wedding feasts could be lavish affairs (Matt.22:4; John 2:6–10), with protocols regarding seating (Luke14:8–10) and attire (Matt. 22:11–13; Rev. 19:7–9).
Inthe NT, these and other first-century wedding customs illustrateaspects of the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the wedding feast(Matt. 22:1–14) contrasts the invited guests (corrupt religiousleaders in Israel) who ignored the king’s wedding invitationand murdered his servants with those people, good and evil, gatheredfrom the streets (the downtrodden) who took their place. Theirwillingness to attend is qualified only by their coming properlyattired in wedding robes, which by inference were provided by theking himself (Rev. 19:7–8).
Theparable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) plays on theunderstanding that weddings occurred not at a specific time but whenthe bridegroom was ready. His readiness was determined by, amongother things, the readiness of a dwelling place for his new bride. Infirst-century Capernaum, this would have been a room or rooms builtonto his father’s insula, a multifamily compound surrounding aninterior courtyard; the same image is behind John 14:2–4. Theparable, identifying the Son of Man as the bridegroom, illustratesthat while his coming in glory is certain, its timing is unknown.Therefore, the bridal party is to be vigilant and prepared.
Elsewhere,Jesus is specifically named asthe bridegroom preparing to marryhis bride, the church (2Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 31–32).Thewedding feast at Cana (John 2:1–11), which beginsJesus’ public ministry, points proleptically to the marriagesupper of the Lamb, which inaugurates the eschatological age (Rev.19:7–9). The culminating picture of God with his people (Deut.16:13–16; Matt. 1:23; John 1:14) is a magnificent wedding (Rev.21:2, 9) between Christ and the new Jerusalem.
AncientNear East
Theancient Near East was a male-dominated culture in which, therefore,women were marginalized and treated more or less as property. Note,for example, Boaz’s question “Who does that young womanbelong to?” (Ruth 2:5). Women, of course, produce children, andthis power was prized. Women were also fit to engage in variousmundane tasks, but they were not trained for war or educated forservice in the royal court. Their role in society was subordinate andsecondary.
Inthe Epic of Gilgamesh, the wild and powerful Enkidu met a “wisewoman” who seduced him. Thereafter, Enkidu was tamed andweakened. She made a civilized man of him. In the Ugaritic legend ofDanil, Danil was unhappy because he had no sons. With the blessing ofthe gods, he married Hurriya, and had sons and daughters. Thus, sonsfulfilled Danil as much as they fulfilled the woman.
Butthe power to reproduce, which resides in the woman’s womb, alsowas mysterious and seemed to belong in the same category as otherforces of nature, such as the rebirth of life in the spring followingsterile winter. Thus, the ancient world was filled with goddesses ofgreat power. These goddesses at times also took on masculinecharacteristics, such as displaying great prowess in war; this isespecially true of Anat of Canaanite mythology.
ThroughoutIsrael’s sojourn in the Promised Land, there was anundercurrent of Canaanite-style goddess worship. In the period of thejudges, the Israelites worshiped the goddess Asherah (Judg. 6:25).Led astray by his wives, Solomon also worshiped the goddess (1Kings11:1–8). The “fertility cult” included ritual sexin places of worship. This eventually took place in the temple ofYahweh. Much of this seems to have been hom*osexual sex (2Kings23:7).
Creationof Woman
Inthe Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:26–28.God created “man” in the plural, male and female, andcommanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it.Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created inthe image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would bethought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the firstman the image of God, but the first woman participates in the imageas well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and itsuggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.
Genesisrecords that the human race fell through the instrumentality of aman, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, notthe man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbiddenfruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying aword. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race.Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife”(Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain inchildbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her(Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, butit appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership andwill be perpetually frustrated.
Throughoutthe remainder of Genesis, this judgment does not seem to unfold asexpected. Instead, men are shown to desire women. Jacob was willingto work seven years to get the beautiful Rachel as his wife, and whenhe was fooled into marrying her sister, Leah, he was willing to workanother seven years for her (Gen. 29:16–30). And women exploitmen and their desire in order to get what they want, in effectmastering them. Lot’s daughters contrived to get what theywanted from him (19:30–38), and Tamar manipulated Judah’sdesire (38:13–26).
Reproduction
Oftenin the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children.Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’lldie!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with hersister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb”is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is fullof them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3:“Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; yourchildren will be like olive shoots around your table.”
InGenesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at thedisposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservantsbecame surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10).Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so shegave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finallyresulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she boreto Abraham.
Inthe beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husbandand wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man fromCain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage(Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have morethan one wife, the household discontent and strife are what ishighlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elderis to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1Tim. 3:2;ESV, KJV: “the husband of onewife”),meaningmonogamous.
Inthe Bible, women are described as having a number of different sexualrelationships with men. There were wives, who enjoyed the closestrelationship and had the greatest privileges. There were concubines,who were not wives but were bound to a single man. The greatestdeviation from the norm of creation was the institution of the harem,whereby a king took to himself any number of consorts. The law ofMoses restricted this practice (Deut. 17:17).
Legislation
TheTorah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughtersof Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so inCanaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israeldaughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if therewere no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num.27:1–11).
Whena man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vowwas subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, butif he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she wasmarried, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, thenthere was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as aman’s (Num. 30:1–16).
Sexualintercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as theact rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both mustbathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrualdischarge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or layupon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She mustwash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).
Ifa man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not avirgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents providedevidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man wasseverely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her(otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her[Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to beput to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).
Inthe case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city,both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she hadfailed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented tosexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the manwas killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, hispunishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce(Deut. 22:23–29).
Numbers5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that hiswife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantaljealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.
TheStatus of Women
Inthe Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what isexpected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the onlywoman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to adeity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel(despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrewverb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge,however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera;Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this missionunless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that theprestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Anotherprominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidancewhen the law was rediscovered (2Kings 22:14).
Manybiblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined bytwo midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21).Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts hertrek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bearsher name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and thewomen there have the distinction of being the first to witness therisen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized aroundMary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape theearly church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, callingthem “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” andpossibly even “apostle.”
Scripturealso at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Evehanded the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israelworshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num.25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women,directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba wasa temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marredhis career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved manyforeign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile,the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreignwives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).
Songof Songs
Songof Songs, while acknowledging the great power of sexuality to movepeople to act against their own best interests, nevertheless portrayslove in a very positive light. The love between a man and a woman isshown in Song of Songs to be not primarily about generating children.Offspring are not at issue in the Bible’s great love song.Rather, relations between man and wife rest on a deeper foundation,that of sexual enjoyment and desire. In the words of Hannah’shusband, Elkanah, “Don’t I mean more to you than tensons?” (1Sam. 1:8).
InGen. 3:16, God pronounces judgment on the woman that her “desire”will be for her husband, but that he will master her. The Hebrew wordfor “desire” occurs only once outside Genesis, in Song7:10, where the woman says that her lover’s “desire”is for her. This seems to be a direct reference to Gen. 3:16. Thus,in Song of Songs the judgment on the woman is rolled back andreversed in love. In Song of Songs it is the king who is enthralledin love and thus subdued (7:5). He would not have it any other way!
Thus,sexuality is celebrated in Song of Songs. What proves to be such agrave temptation to men elsewhere is shown to be an essential part ofGod’s good creation, albeit a potent and dangerous facet oflife. Women do not exist simply to produce children; they partner andrevel with their lovers, together enjoying that particular part ofGod’s creation that requires two sexes to explore.
Imagery
Womenand marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things.Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationshipwith Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife asChrist loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to humanhistory in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned withrighteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whor*Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). Theconsummation of the age is when one is judged and the other entersher eternal marital bliss.
Thebook of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolizedby two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices ofWoman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33)calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-bloodtemptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdomhas her counterpart at the end of the book in the detaileddescription of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the womanwho fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—thehighest blessing of the wise.
Pauluses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of lawversus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenantgiven at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-setof slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by worksof the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promisedson, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, andfreedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again,two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves,the other being God’s free people.
ChurchGovernment
Throughoutmost of Christian history, women’s roles in the church havebeen comparable to their role in the general culture. Womenparticipated little in the institutional life of society, and thechurch was no different. A number of Bible texts can be used insupport of women’s marginalization as leaders. For example, inthe OT, the cult was managed by the priestly caste, and no woman wasever a priest of Yahweh. In the NT, the local churches were overseenby a company of elders. Elders are described by Paul as men, thehusband of one wife, who were apt to teach and who managed their ownfamilies well (1Tim. 3:1–7). Immediately before thisdescription, Paul notes that women were not to teach or haveauthority over men (1Tim. 2:9–15). Women were the “weakerpartner” (1Pet. 3:7). Thus, women’s subordinaterole throughout most of church history has some biblicaljustification.
However,as women participate more and more in the institutional life ofsociety, the normative value of the aforementioned texts has beenquestioned, and other texts have been put forward to provide analternative biblical conception of women’s roles in the church.Perhaps 1Tim. 2:12 is only against teaching a specific heresy,and the Greek verb translated “to assume authority over”(authenteō)may refer to a specific kind of authoritarian or domineeringbehavior. As noted above, in Rom. 16 Paul considers women to beleaders in the church. Since it is true that in Christ there is nomale or female (Gal. 3:28), how far does this extend? Today’schallenge for churches is to decide these matters in light of thewhole of Scripture rather than a few proof texts.
Showing
1
to
50
of627
results
1. Parable of the Tire
Illustration
"I don't know why I should always be plagued with troubles," said Mrs. Lavendar. "Every time I go out somewhere, that rear tire is flat and I have to get it inflated. My son also is a real concern to me. Every time he has a problem, he comes running home."
"The tire probably needs vulcanizing," said Mr. Black. "It has a small leak somewhere that's hard to detect. As for your son, I don't know what you can do about him."
It was true that the tire had disappointed Mrs. Lavendar too many times. It needed to be removed from the car or have major repair. The young son also needed a major change to be cut loose from his mother's apron strings.
His domineering mother had treated him as a god in his childhood and he could do no wrong. After he was married, her hold on him proved a major detriment to his marriage. It was impossible for his wife to please him and he ran home frequently to be pampered and consoled by his mother.
Our children are not equipped to face life when parents are over solicitous. We need to grow in our own faith, develop individual courage, gain justifiable self-confidence and meet the challenges of life with sound judgment. Experience is a good teacher along with helpful guidance. Our momentary defeats may be turned into long-term achievements.
2. Unwise and Wise Living
Illustration
William R. Baker
Jewish rabbis tell a poignant story that drives home the point of Proverbs 18:21. As the story goes (and five versions of this appear in Greek literature), Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel one day asked his servant to go to buy some good food for him in the market. When the servant returned home, he presented the rabbi with a tongue.
The next day, the rabbi told the servant to go to the market to buy some bad food. Again, the servant returned with a tongue.
When the rabbi asked the servant why he returned with a tongue both times, the servant made this astute observation: "Good comes from it and bad comes from it. When the tongue is good, there is nothing better, and when it is bad, there is nothing worse."
3. Nature of Faith
Illustration
Brett Blair
In 1520 Martin Luther explained the nature of faith using marriage as an illustration: "The third incomparable benefit of faith is that it unites the soul with Christ as a bride united with her bridegroom. By this mystery, as the apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage ... it follows that everything they have they hold in common, the good as well as the evil. Accordingly the believing soul can boast of and glory in whatever Christ has as though it were his own."
4. Be Careful How You Live - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Years ago, Harry Emerson Fosdick, then at the height of his influence as minister of the Riverside Church, New York City, was making a tour of Palestine and other countries of the Near and Middle East. He was invited to give an address at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, where the student body comprised citizens of many countries and representatives from sixteen different religions. What could one say that would be relevant or of interest to so mixed and varied a group? This is how Fosdick began: "I do not ask anyone here to change his religion; but I do ask all of you to face up to this question: What is your religion doing to your character?"
This was a call to consider one of the great issues of human belief: religion and life, Christianity and character, word and spirit. Emerson once said, "What you are speaks so loudly I cannot hear a word you say." Jesus' discourse in this whole sixth chapter of the Gospel of John had two foci - spirit and life. "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." By this he meant that those who appropriated his spirit, i.e., fed upon him as the bread of life, would find, thereby, a fulfillment and satisfaction no other means could give.
The traditions of the world of his time, of course, had a different emphasis. The Greeks were in search of a formula for life, a slogan by which to perform, but such could never claim the commitment of the human will. The Jews had their Law, demanding obedience to every detail as the requisite to the good life, but St. Paul discovered that a set of rules could never provide salvation nor solve the deadly problem of sin and moral failure. Jesus, however, came with a new key to true life: accept his spirit, surrender to the claim of his will, allow him to enter the stream of everyday living; and, in this commitment, all we say and do will reflect the influence of his life within us.
What does this do for and with those who resolve to do it? How has it worked in the Christian story? The world saw this effect in the spirit of the early church, the spirit of human conduct, and in the power to realize what the Christian story promises.
1. The New Spirit's Effecton the Early Church.
2. The New Spirit'sEffectupon Human Conduct.
3. The Power to Realize the Christian Story's Promises.
5. The Prince's Devotion
Illustration
Michael P. Green
There is an oldstory of a prince and his family who were captured by an enemy king. When brought before the enemy king, the prisoner was asked, “What will you give me if I release you?” “Half of my wealth,” was the prince’s reply.
“And if I release your children?”
“Everything I possess.”
“And if I release your wife?”
“Your Majesty, for her I would give myself,” said the prince.
The king was so moved by the prince’s devotion to his family that he freed them all. As they returned home, the prince said to his wife, “Wasn’t the king a handsome man!” With a look of deep love for her husband, she said to him, “I didn’t notice. I could keep my eyes only on the one who was willing to give himself for my sake.”
6. Do's and Don'ts
Illustration
A husband and wife didn't really love each other. The man was very demanding, so much so that he prepared a list of rules and regulations for his wife to follow. He insisted that she read them over every day and obey them to the letter. Among other things, his "do's and don'ts" indicated such details as what time she had to get up in the morning, when his breakfast should be served, and how the housework should be done. After several long years, the husband died.
As time passed, the woman fell in love with another man, one who dearly loved her. Soon they were married. This husband did everything he could to make his new wife happy, continually showering her with tokens of his appreciation. One day as he was cleaning house, she found tucked away in a drawer the list of commands her first husband had drawn up for her. As she looked it over, it dawned on her that even though her present husband hadn't given her any kind of list, she was doing everything her first husband's list required anyway. She realized she was so devoted to this man that her deepest desire was to please him out of love, not obligation.
7. More Than Feelings (Weddings)
Illustration
James McCormick
Most people think of love simply as a feeling you have for someone. For them, it’s a good, warm, romantic, sentimental feeling. I’m in favor of good feelings, but there is a problem: feelings are undependable and uncontrollable. You can’t decide how you’re going to feel – you just feel. Consequently, many of the people who think of love in such terms fall out of love as quickly as they fall into it. Their love is undependable. Marriage is too important to be built upon a foundation so shaky.
The Apostle Paul doesn’t think of love in such terms at all. He writes about a tough, durable kind of love, a love that keeps on loving no matter what. That understanding of love is so important to marriage, because only those able to love one another unconditionally will be able to live together happily as husband and wife. That’s why, in just a few moments, I will ask the two of you to pledge your unconditional love for one another.
But first, I want to remind you that love is more than a feeling. I know that what you are feeling for one another at this moment is beautiful. And, all of us here, your family and your friends, consider it to be a special privilege to share in the beauty of this moment with you. But I hope you will understand when I say that there will be times in your marriage when you will not feel about one another exactly as you do just now. There will be times in your marriage when you will not like each other very much - and that’s normal. There is no-one in the whole world you can feel good about all the time!
So, when those times come in your marriage, as they will, I hope you will stop and remember that love is more than feelings. Love that has grown up to maturity is first of all a commitment, a commitment to be together as husband and wife from now on, no matter what. It’s a commitment that is unconditional. Mature love is also a decision – a decision to act lovingly even when you don’t feel loving – maybe especially when you don’t feel loving!
Of course, the source of such love is God. God loves us with a love that never wavers, a love that is unconditional, and then He asks us to pass that love along to one another. I’m quite sure that, of all God’s gifts to us, the greatest gift of all is the gift of love. Amen.
8. Public Pressure
Illustration
Brett Blair
Lloyd J. Ogilve, in his book Life without Limits, tells the story of a pastor who in the space of one week heard the following comments from various people:
A woman said, "I'm under tremendous pressure from my son these days. I can't seem to satisfy him, however hard I work. He really puts me under pressure."
A young man said, "My parents have fantastic goals for me to take over the family business. It's not what I want to do, but their pressure is unbearable."
A college woman said, "I'm being pressured by my boyfriend to live with him before we are married. You know...sort of try it out...to see if we are right for each other."
A husband said, "My wife is never satisfied. Whatever I do, however much I make, it's never enough. Life with her is like living in a pressure cooker with the lid fastened down and the heat on high."
A secretary said, pointing to her phone, "That little black thing is driving me silly. At the other end of the line are people who make impossible demands and think they are the only people alive."
A middle-aged wife said, "My husband thinks my faith is silly. When I feel his resistance to Christ, I wonder if I'm wrong and confused. As a result, I've developed two lives; one with him and one when I'm with my Christian friends."
An elderly woman said, "My sister thinks she has all the answers about the faith and tries to convince me of her point of view. I feel pressured to become her brand of Christian, but I keep thinking if it means being like her, I don't want it at all. When she calls, I just put the phone on my shoulder and let her rant on while I do other things. A half-hour later, she's still on the line blasting away, but I still feel pressure."
A young pastor at a clergy conference said, "I hardly know who I am any more. There are so many points of view in my congregation, I can't please them all. Everyone wants to capture me for his camp and get me to shape the church around his convictions. The pressure makes me want to leave the ministry."
All of these persons have one thing in common. They are being pressured by other people. We all, at one time or another, experience people-pressure. The question is how will it effect our judgment? That is the question Herod faced. After making an oath to a pretty young girl that she could have up to half of his kingdom, she surprised him and asked for the head of the Baptist. Mark 6:26 indicates that the King was thrown into distress, he knew it was wrong, but because of his oath and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. He sent the executioner and on a platter was delivered the head of a holy man.
9. A Life of Despair
Illustration
Brett Blair
Two of his daughters and a son-in-law committed suicide. Three of his children died of malnutrition. Marx felt no obligation to earn a living, but instead lived by begging from Engels. He fathered an illegitimate child by his maidservant. He drank heavily. He was a paid informer of the Austrian police, spying on revolutionaries. Though Marx and his wife were poor, he kept investing in the stock market where he constantly lost. His wife left him twice, but returned. When she died, he didn't attend her funeral. His correspondence with Engels was full of obscenities. His favorite daughter, Eleanor, with her father's approval, married Edward Eveling, a man who advocated blasphemy and worshiped Satan. Daughter Eleanor committed suicide, poisoning herself with cyanide. Karl Marx died in despair.
Laura Marx, Karl's other daughter committed suicide together with her husband on25 November 1911. The coupledecided they had nothing left to give to the movement to which they had devoted their lives. Laura was 66 and her husband Paul Lafargue was 69. In their suicide letter, which Paul wrote,they explained why they committed suicide.It reads:
"Healthy in body and mind, I end my life before pitiless old age which has taken from me my pleasures and joys one after another; and which has been stripping me of my physical and mental powers, can paralyse my energy and break my will, making me a burden to myself and to others. For some years I had promised myself not to live beyond 70; and I fixed the exact year for my departure from life. I prepared the method for the execution of our resolution, it was a hypodermic of cyanide acid. I die with the supreme joy of knowing that at some future time, the cause to which I have been devoted for forty-five years will triumph. Long live Communism! Long Live the international socialism!"
Vladimir Lenin was one of the speakers at the funeral. He would later write the following to his wife: "If one cannot work for the Party any longer, one must be able to look truth in the face and die like the Lafargues."
Is it any wonder things ended this way for the Marx family?When you look at the tenets of Marxism, where else would you end up but in despair? Listen to these 10 basic principles:
- Abolition of private property
- A heavy progressiveincome tax.
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- State control of banks.
- State controlof communication and the press.
- State owned businesses.
- Equal liability of all to work, establishingindustrial armies
- Equal distribution of the populace over the country.
- Combination of education with industrial production.
What is there left to live for? This world would lead to the despair that caused the Marx family to take their lives. They stand in contrast to the Greatest Commandment to love God and love your neighbor and to the admonitionof the Beatitudes. Christianity frees and affirms; Marxism controls and demands. It's life or death isn't it? It's God's offer to the Israelites: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live
10. Old Smoothies
Illustration
A couple attended their 60 year high school class reunion. During the evening they were chosen to head a group that would judge the Old Smoothies dance contest. The husband had a hearing problem and his wife had been trying to get him to get a hearing aid. When the contest got down to the last two partners, the wife conferred with the group of judges and then whispered the name of the winners to her husband. He didn't hear, so she told him again and then yelled, "Get the bananas out of your ears!"
The husband immediately seized the microphone and announced the winners: "Mr. and Mrs. Bonnanas!" Their name turned out to be Smith.
If that wasn't bad enough then the wife explained to the Smiths that they had won because they did such a great job of executing all those dips. "Dips? What dips?" said Mr. Smith. "We were just trying to hold each other up."
11. The Healing Power Of Faith
Illustration
Harold H. Lentz
The woman with the issue of blood had faith that by contact with Christ she could be cured. All around us in daily life are examples of people who, by faith, are overcoming life's difficulties.
A telephone linesman was up a pole when the pole, which was held in place only by cables, fell over him and he was dashed to the ground. His insides were badly crushed and as he was rushed to the hospital; there was little hope that he could survive. A pastor learned of the accident when the man's wife called from the hospital. She said that the very best surgeons in the community had operated but found that he was beyond repair and they had given up all hope. She had been informed that her husband would die within the hour. She asked the pastor to hurry to the hospital to baptize her husband before he died. The pastor entered the sickroom to find a patient with the color of death, too weak to speak. Quickly the pastor explained that God loved the patient. In a few words he explained that baptism makes one a child of God whose sins are forgiven through Christ's death on the cross. Then he asked the patient if he wished to be baptized. The man was too weak to do more than slightly shake his head in consent.
As the pastor left he asked the wife to call him when death came. The pastor got no call that day, nor through the following night. So the next morning he called the wife, who told him that her husband was still alive and some of his color had returned. He fell asleep after the pastor's visit, something he had not done since the accident, and he even ate some food for the first time. The man recovered completely and in a few months was once again climbing telephone poles. All medical help had proven of no avail, but evidently the introduction of faith, and the spiritual dimension, had caused the man to rally. It has been well said, that "more things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of."
12. A Wise Husband
Illustration
Some helpful hints for a husband who wants to see his spouse experience God's best were posted in Daddy's Home, by Greg Johnson and Mike Yorkey.
A husband can:
- Back off (give her some space).
- Be patient (don't rush things).
- Love her as you love your own body (that's going to take some work).
- Affirm her role in the family (whether she stays home or works outside the home, she's got the most important job in the world).
- Pray for her as you've never prayed before (because God hears our prayers).
- Lower your expectations (you're not going to see fireworks every night).
- Do the little things (without expecting anything in return).
- Show her she's the most cherished woman on earth (she'll probably faint the first time you do this).
- Above all, persevere (you're in this for the long haul).
A wise husband builds his mate's self-esteem, realizing that the subtle words and actions of a sinful world constantly assault her sense of self-worth. He remains sensitive to her needs and is always ready to offer his support.
Encourage your wife verbally and demonstratively. Words of cheer and praise are high octane fuel that boost your wife's emotional fuel tanks.
13. Strange Arithmetic
Illustration
Donald B. Strobe
Dr. Paul Popenoe, the famous marriage counselor, was talking to a young husband who had been openly critical of his wife. Dr. Popenoe was explaining how two become one in marriage. In a smart reply the husband said, "Yes, but which one?" The counselor said, "A little of each." Then he went on to explain that in marriage you have to develop "we-psychology"...and to think of yourself in terms of a pair rather than as an individual. What happens when two become one in a real marriage? Some think that it reduces your individuality. Too often one party or the other seems to be saying: "Alright - we two shall become one...and I AM the one!" Obviously, such a marriage is headed for trouble. Ideally, when "two become one" it means that each one is doubled, but not duplicated. You still retain your individual identity, but you add to yourself the identity of the other, and the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Mark 10:7)
A wise person once said: "A marriage consists of one master, one mistress, and two slaves; making, in total, one." That may be strange arithmetic, but it is good theology.
14. Two Schools of Thought on Divorce
Illustration
Mickey Anders
There were two schools of thought in Jesus' day concerning divorce, one liberal and one conservative. Rabbi Shammai taught that divorce was only permissible on the grounds of some sexual impropriety. His was the stricter view. Rabbi Hillel, on the other hand, had a more liberal view and taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. If she burned his breakfast, put too much salt on his food, showed disrespect to him, spoke disrespectfully of her husband's parents in his presence, spoke to a man on the street, or even let her hair down in public, he could divorce her. The view of Rabbi Hillel was the view that was popular in Jesus' day. So divorce was common in Palestine, and in this respect the setting was not unlike our own.
Perhaps the most significant difference between their customs and ours lay in the status of the different genders. A man could divorce a woman on a whim, but a woman could not divorce a man for any cause. The Old Testament contains a highly patriarchal position that viewed a woman's sexual immorality more as property damage against her husband (or her father) rather than as a moral issue. A double standard shines throughout the Old Testament, where it was not uncommon for the male rulers to have many wives and hundreds of concubines. If you look carefully at the question of the Pharisees, you will find no concern whatsoever about a woman's rights in marriage or divorce. "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
15. I Am the King’s Servant, But God’s First
Illustration
Michael Manning
If you get a chance, rent the movie A Man for All Seasons. It is based on the life of St. Thomas Moore and is one of the best dramatic movies I have ever seen. It has been a couple of years since I have seen it, but one scene remains vivid in my mind when I think about the importance of persecution as a way of life for followers of Jesus.
More was the Chancellor of England. By profession he was a lawyer. He loved his king. He loved his country and he loved its laws. Then a terrible dilemma developed for him when the king decided to end his allegiance to the Pope in Rome. Moore was conflicted. While he loved his country and his king, he also loved the church. He was faced with two deeply personal loves, and yet he realized he could no longer have both. As he weighed his options, he considered the fact that both the king and the church had its problems. The king he loved could be ruthless and he wasn't faithful in marriage. The church he loved, on the other hand, was full of all kinds of sinful men. What was he to do?
In a powerful scene from A Man for All Seasons that takes place in the sweating walls of the Tower of London, his wife visits her prisoner husband and asks why he won't just sign the statement of allegiance to the king so they could get back to their life of comfort and prestige. With anguish, Moore cries in a gut-wrenching scene that he is not made of the stuff of martyrs. He doesn't know for sure if he is doing the right thing.
In the end, Moore is convicted of treason for his refusal to acknowledge that the king was the supreme head of the Church of England, Moore defended his actions by saying, "I am the king's servant, but God's first." He weighed all decisions relative to his commitment and love for God. Even if it results in his personal loss of freedom.
16. Athanasian Creed
Illustration
Brett Blair
Athanasian Creed:Athanasius, known as Athanasius of Alexandria, was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. His intermittent episcopacy spanned 45 years, of which over 17 encompassed five exiles. He istraditionally thought to be the author of the thisCreed named after him.It was createdto guardNicene Christianity from the heresy of Arianism. It is widely accepted as orthodox and some abbreviated versions of it are still in usetoday. And yes, the intro and outro are actually part of the original text.
Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
This ecumenical creed(428 A.D.) is probably unknown to most Christians because it is seldom, if ever, used in worship services. It is probably not used because of its length. The Nicene Creed has eighteen printed lines, whereas the Athanasian has 69. It is difficult for congregations to use because of the creed's intricate and complex terms.
Though the creed carries the name of Athanasius, he did not write it. It was the product of the church of his time. The creed was named after him to honor him for his brave and forceful defense of the Trinity. Athanasius (289-373) was a bishop in Alexandria, Egypt.
The creed deals primarily with the Trinity and Jesus as the Son of God. At this time, the heresy of Arius was prominent. He taught that Jesus was not fully human or divine and that the Holy Spirit was not God but only a divine influence. The Athanasian Creed denounced these false teachings and upheld the doctrine of the Trinity. Luther's high regard for this creed was expressed: "I doubt, since the days of the Apostles, anything more important and more glorious has ever been written in the church of the New Testament."
17. "As If" You Love
Illustration
J. Allan Petersen
Newspaper columnist and minister George Crane tells of a wife who came into his office full of hatred toward her husband. "I do not only want to get rid of him, I want to get even. Before I divorce him, I want to hurt him as much as he has me."
Dr. Crane suggested an ingenious plan "Go home and act as if you really love your husband. Tell him how much he means to you. Praise him for every decent trait. Go out of your way to be as kind, considerate, and generous as possible. Spare no efforts to please him, to enjoy him. Make him believe you love him. After you've convinced him of your undying love and that you cannot live without him, then drop the bomb. Tell him that you're getting a divorce. That will really hurt him."
With revenge in her eyes, she smiled and exclaimed, "Beautiful, beautiful. Will he ever be surprised!" And she did it with enthusiasm. Acting "as if." For two months she showed love, kindness, listening, giving, reinforcing, sharing. When she didn't return, Crane called. "Are you ready now to go through with the divorce?"
"Divorce?" she exclaimed. "Never! I discovered I really do love him." Her actions had changed her feelings. Motion resulted in emotion. The ability to love is established not so much by fervent promise as often repeated deeds.
18. Creeds and Deeds - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Rev. David Chadwell posed a rather interesting question: Which would you prefer for a next-door neighbor: a person of excellent habits or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a good friend: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a husband or a wife: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a child: a child with excellent habits, or a child with a good heart?
It is wonderful to have a neighbor who conscientiously cares for his property while respecting your property. It is wonderful to have a friend who always treats you with consideration. It is wonderful to be married to a husband who always is thoughtful and courteous, or to a wife who always is gracious in her comments and deeds. It is wonderful to have a son or daughter who shows respect and uses good manners.
As wonderful as those situations are, none of them compare to having a neighbor, a friend, a husband, a wife, a son, or a daughter with a good heart.
When you discuss good behavior, you are discussing the quality of a person's self-control. When you discuss a good heart, you are discussing the quality of the person.
This is the focus of today's Scripture. Pharisees and teachers have come down from Jerusalem and, interestingly, they are gathered around Jesus watching the disciples. The disciples, it seems, are eating lunch. They have come in from the day's work. Too tired and too hungry to care that their hands and faces were dirty, they immediately sat down to eat without washing.
The Pharisees cease upon this ceremonial oversight and question Jesus: Why don't your disciples live according to the traditions of the elders and clean their hands before they eat? This is all that Jesus needs to hear. He sticks up for his disciples, turns on these teachers and says in essence, "Why do you not live according to the traditions of God and clean your hearts?"
What mistake did these Pharisees make? What is Jesus trying to convey, not only to them, but to us as well. For you see, it is just as easy for us to fall into a good habit and leave behind a good heart. What is Jesus' warning to us?
1.We prefer creeds rather than deeds.
2.We look at the outside not the inside.
3.But God requires good Creeds, Deeds, and Hearts.
19. Love for God Is a Commitment
Illustration
King Duncan
An old Russian woman lay on a sofa. Multiple sclerosis had twisted her body almost beyond recognition. The simplest tasks had become almost impossible for her. Corrie Ten Boom visited her at night, using the cover of darkness to escape detection by the Lithuanian authorities. Corrie kissed the woman's wrinkled cheek. The old woman could respond only by rolling her eyes and smiling because the atrophied muscles in her neck would no longer allow her to move her head. The only part of her body she could still control was her right hand. With her gnarled knuckles she stroked Corrie's face. Corrie reached up to take her hand, and kissed her index finger for a special reason.
The routine was the same every morning as the old lady's husband propped her into a sitting position on the sofa. A battered old typewriter was placed on a little table in front of her. Every day the old woman would begin to type. She could only use that one index finger to peck out the letters. This woman served God by translating Christian books into Russian. It was slow going sometimes only typing a page or two a day but this was her way of loving God. She typed portions of the Bible as well as some of the books of Billy Graham and other Christian witnesses.
The woman's attitude was extraordinary. She saw her sickness as a prerequisite, not a detriment, for the work she did. Every other Christian in the city was watched by the secret police. But because she had been sick for so long the police took no interest in her, and she could work undetected spreading the good news of Jesus to a people who were starving for good news.
"Not only does she translate these books," her husband told Corrie, "but she prays while she types. Sometimes it takes a long time for her finger to hit the key, or for her to get the paper in the machine, but all the time she is praying for those whose books she is working on."
That's loving God. People make the same mistake with loving God that they make with loving a spouse. They confuse love with a feeling. Feelings are important, of course, but love for God is, first of all, a commitment.
20. Put Everything You Have Into It
Illustration
Donald B. Strobe
Television personality Willard Scott said, "A good marriage is like an incredible retirement fund. You put everything you have into it during your productive life, and over the years it turns from silver to gold to platinum." That's why a long marriage has always seemed to be such a good idea to the Church. Divorce is like putting your money in an investment fund and then cashing it in just before it begins to gain interest. Note Scott's words: "you put everything you have into it."
Not everybody does. For instance: classified ad appeared in the newspapers sometime back: "For sale: One 52-year old husband. Never remembers anniversaries, birthdays, or special days. Seldom holds hands, hugs, kisses, or says, 'I love you.' Rarely is kind and tender. Will sell cheap - two cents. Call 555-0366. Will bargain." Not much of self put into that marriage. No wonder the wife wants to get rid of the husband. Cheap. But marriage is a 60-60 proposition. Each must go more than half-way.
21. Who Moved?
Illustration
Carl B. Rife
Who is lost? It reminds me of a story of a husband and wife who had been married for 15 years and the wife is sitting buckled in on her side of the car and the husband is sitting buckled in on his side of the car. The wife says, "Dear, why don't we sit as close as we used to?" The husband turns and says to her, "Well, honey, who moved?" Why isn't God as close to us as he used to be? The question is, "who moved?" Who is lost?
22. It’s Ok to Be Extravagant – Sermon Opener
Illustration
James W. Moore
A few years ago there was a true story about a man in New York City who was kidnapped. His kidnappers called his wife and asked for $100,000 ransom. She talked them down to $30,000.
The story had a happy ending: the man returned home unharmed, the money was recovered, and the kidnappers were caught and sent to jail. But, don't you wonder what happened when the man got home and found that his wife got him back for a discount? Calvin Trillin was the writer of this story. He imagined out loud what the negotiations must have been like: "$100,000 for that old guy? You have got to be crazy. Just look at him! Look at that gut! You want $100,000 for that? You've got to be kidding. Give me a break here. $30,000 is my top offer."
Mark Trotter concluded his rendition of the story with this thoughtful comment: "I suppose there are some here this morning who can identify with the wife in that story, but for some reason I find myself identifying with the husband. I'd like to think if I were in a similar situation, there would be people who would spare no expense to get me back. They wouldn't haggle over the price. They wouldn't say, 'Well, let me think about it.' I like to think that they would say, 'We'll do anything for you.'"
The point of that story is this: sometimes it's O.K. to be extravagant! Now, that is precisely what this story in the Gospel of Mark is all about. Remember the story with me. Jesus is on His way to the cross. It is just a few days before Passover. The chief priests and scribes are plotting against Him. Judas is about ready to betray Him. The crucifixion is less than a week away and Jesus knows it. Jesus and His disciples stop at Bethany. just a few days before, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead there in Bethany. Now, as they are having dinner, a woman comes to Jesus and does a beautiful but extravagant thing for our Lord. The Gospel of John tells us that the woman was Mary, (the sister of Martha and Lazarus). Mary brings an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment. She breaks open the jar and pours the costly perfumed oil on Jesus' head. She anoints His head with oil.
Why did she do that? Some say it was an act of gratitude in which she was thanking Jesus for raising her brother Lazarus from the dead. Some say it was an act of consecration in which she was baptizing Jesus to encourage Him to go into the HolyCity and do what had to be done. Others say it was a foreshadowing, an act of preparation, in which she was anointing His body for the death which was to come in Jerusalem a few days later. All say it was an act of love and kindness.
But Judas said it was a waste. If you lived strictly by the Judas mind-set, you would have no Spire on the church, no flowers on the altar, no art on the wall, no robes for the choir, no fine organ, no beautiful weddings. Your daughter would come to you and say, "I'm in love and I'm so happy. I want to get married." And you would say, "Well, why don't you just elope? It's much cheaper. It would be wasteful to have a wedding." But the Mary mind-set says, "Sometimes in the name of love and kindness and gratefulness; it's O.K. Indeed, it's beautiful to be extravagant." Let me show you what I mean.
1. First Of All, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Generosity.
2. Second, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Gratitude.
3. Third And Finally, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Graciousness.
23. Do What You Need to Do
Illustration
King Duncan
Ron Del Bene was searching for answers in his life. Someone told him about a man in Los Angeles who has a reputation for being a very wise spiritual guide. On a business trip to the west coast Ron made an appointment to see this wise man whom he was sure could help him in his spiritual quest.
The day Ron was to meet the wise man he had a hard time concentrating on his business. All he could think about was the upcoming meeting with the one who surely had The Answer. He drove up the coast only to discover when he arrived that the man was not there. The longer he waited the angrier he became. Finally the man arrived. "I don't know which was greater, my anger or my disappointment," Ron remembers. "This short slightly built person didn't look at all like the wise man I had pictured. He didn't even have a beard!"
The wise man asked Ron why he had come to see him. For the next sixty minutes Ron poured out his hopes, fears, anxieties, and dreams. "Now," directed the wise man, "pay attention!" Ron thought perhaps the teacher would place his hands on his head or heart and he would explode in ecstasy. But he didn't. The wise teacher simply rattled off three things Ron should do. Before Ron had a chance to respond or ask any questions the Wise One left the room. Ron felt disappointed and disillusioned. He had traveled all that way and for what?
After Ron returned home his wife, Eleanor, asked him about his meeting with the Wise One. She listened intensely to her husband's every word. "He told me that there are three things I must do," Ron said. "One, pray unceasingly. Two, go home and love my wife and children. Three, do what needs to be done."
Eleanor looked straight at Ron said, "Thank God, someone finally told you that!" What the teacher told Ron was true. "In retrospect," Ron writes, the teacher "was a far wiser man than I appreciated at the time."
When he least expected it, Ron made a great discovery. That discovery brought great joy. Such joy is a continuing possibility for those who open themselves to the kingdom of God.
24. Whispering the Lyrics
Illustration
Thomas Long
There's an interesting story behind Jimmy Reed records. In placing the phonograph needle again and again in the grooves of Jimmy Reed's records, you began to notice something curious. If one listened very carefully, there could sometimes be heard, ever so faintly in the background, a soft woman's voice murmuring in advance the next verse of the song. The story that grew up around this -- and perhaps it is true -- was that Jimmy Reed was so absorbed in the bluesy beat and the throbbing guitar riffs of his music that he simply could not remember the words of his own songs. He needed help with the lyrics, and the woman's voice was none other than that of his wife, devotedly coaching her husband through the recording session by whispering the upcoming stanzas into his ear as he sang.
Whether or not this story is accurate, Christians will surely recognize a parallel experience. Jesus tells his followers that the role of the Holy Spirit is, in effect, to whisper the lyrics of the gospel song in the ears of the faithful. When Jesus was present, he was the one who instilled in them the right words, coached them through the proper verses, taught them the joyful commandments. But now that Jesus approaches his death, now that he draws near to his time of departure, now that the disciples will be on their own without him, that task is to be handed over to the Holy Spirit:
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth ..." (John 14:15-17).
The primary task, then, of the Holy Spirit is reminding the faithful of the truth, jogging the memories of the followers of Jesus about all of his commandments so that they can keep them in love, whispering the lyrics of the never-ending hymn of faithful obedience in their ears.
25. Counting the Cost in Marriage
Illustration
Donald Dotterer
In order to live life fully and happily, we must be people who are able to count the cost in almost every area of living.
Marriage is one of those institutions which demands a high personal cost. The church's wedding ritual begins with these sobering words, words that are so often taken too lightly. It says, marriage is "not to be entered into unadvisedly, but reverently, discreetly, and in the fear of God." Each person makes a covenant to love, comfort, honor and take care of the other in sickness and in health. That can be a difficult commitment to keep if a spouse becomes critically ill or severely disabled. The husband and wife agree to stay with each other "for better, for worse, for richer for poorer ... till death do us part." A man and woman must count the cost of what they are getting into in marriage.
So it is also with having children. Did you see a recent letter to Ann Landers in the paper? It struck a chord with this expectant father heading toward his 40th birthday. The writer was talking about the mixed blessings of raising children in your 40s and 50s. It is true, I think, that an older father is more patient, and in a way, more appreciative of children.
However, as this letter-writer rightly suggests, raising children at a later age is also more difficult in many ways. Men or women in their 40s and 50s generally have a lower energy level, so taking the kids to Little League, attending PTA meetings and so forth tires parents much more.
Indeed, there are tremendous physical, emotional, and financial costs to raising children. Before having them, a couple should count the cost. There are just too many lonely and neglected and deprived children out there with parents who have not done so.
26. Twas the Beginning of Advent
Illustration
Richard J. Fairchild
Today I want to read to you a poem that is based on a rather famous poem about Christmas called ‘Twas the Beginning of Advent'. It is by a friend of mine - Todd Jenkins. It will tell you a little bit about this season we celebrate.
'Twas the beginning of Advent and all through the Church
Our hope was all dying we'd given up on the search.
It wasn't so much that Christ wasn't invited,
But after 2,000 plus years we were no longer excited.
Oh, we knew what was coming no doubt about that.
And that was the trouble it was all "old hat."
November brought the first of an unending series of pains
With carefully orchestrated advertising campaigns.
There were gadgets and dolls and all sorts of toys.
Enough to seduce even the most devout girls and boys.
Unfortunately, it seemed, no one was completely exempt
From this seasonal virus that did all of us tempt.
The priests and prophets and certainly the kings
Were all so consumed with the desire for "things!"
It was rare, if at all, that you'd hear of the reason
For the origin of this whole holy-day season.
A baby, it seems, once had been born
In the mid-east somewhere on that first holy-day morn.
But what does that mean for folks like us,
Who've lost ourselves in the hoopla and fuss?
Can we re-learn the art of wondering and waiting,
Of hoping and praying, and anticipating?
Can we let go of all the things and the stuff?
Can we open our hands and our hearts long enough?
Can we open our eyes and open our ears?
Can we find him again after all of these years?
Will this year be different from all the rest?
Will we be able to offer him all of our best?
So many questions, unanswered thus far,
As wise men seeking the home of the star.
Where do we begin how do we start
To make for the child a place in our heart?
Perhaps we begin by letting go
Of our limits on hope, and of the stuff that we know.
Let go of the shopping, of the chaos and fuss,
Let go of the searching, let Christmas find us.
We open our hearts, our hands and our eyes,
To see the king coming in our own neighbours' cries.
We look without seeking what we think we've earned,
But rather we're looking for relationships spurned.
With him he brings wholeness and newness of life
For brother and sister, for husband and wife.
The Christ-child comes not by our skill,
But rather he comes by his own Father's will.
We can't make him come with parties and bright trees,
But only by getting down on our knees.
He'll come if we wait amidst our affliction,
Coming in spite of, not by our restriction.
His coming will happen of this there's no doubt.
The question is whether we'll be in or out.
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock."
Do you have the courage to peer through the lock?
A basket on your porch, a child in your reach.
A baby to love, to feed and to teach.
He'll grow in wisdom as God's only Son.
How far will we follow this radical one?
He'll lead us to challenge the way that things are.
He'll lead us to follow a single bright star.
But that will come later if we're still around.
The question for now: Is the child to be found?
Can we block out commercials, the hype and the malls?
Can we find solitude in our holy halls?
Can we keep alert, keep hope, stay awake?
Can we receive the child for ours and God's sake?
From on high with the caroling host as he sees us,
He yearns to read on our lips the prayer: Come Lord Jesus!
As Advent begins all these questions make plea.
The only true answer: We will see, we will see.
27. Blasphemy Against the Spirit
Illustration
Staff
This statement (Matt 12:32, par Mk. 3:29, Luke 12:10) has been the subject of much questioning. Obviously the reference here is not to the naming of the Holy Spirit in a blasphemous utterance, for in Matt. 12:32 even blasphemy against the Son of man can be forgiven. Among the many attempts at exegesis, the most convincing is the suggestion that the man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who has recognized that God is working through the Holy Spirit in the actions of Jesus, and who quite consciously "misrepresent faith in God as faith in the devil. This saying is an extremely serious warning against the demonic and scarcely conceivable potential in man: To declare war on God. This is not done in weakness and doubt, but by one who has been overcome by the Holy Spirit and who knows very well on whom he is declaring war" (E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, 1971, 87; cf. H.W. Beyer, TDNT I:624; O.E. Evans, "The Unforgivable Sin", ExpT 68, 1956-57, 240-44). This is the blasphemer who does it deliberately, after encounter with the God of grace, as the context shows. For Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. "Therefore he who blasphemes the Spirit is no longer speaking against a God who is distant, about whom he entertains mere foolish thoughts, but against the one who makes evident to him his gracious work, and confirms it with his manifest, divine seal. He is a man who ought to give thanks, not to blaspheme" (A. Schlatter, on Matt. 12:32).
W.L. Lane draws attention to Sifre on Deut. 32:38 (end): "The Holy One, blessed be he, pardons everything else, but on profanation of the Name [i.e. blasphemy] he takes vengeance immediately" (The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 145) Lane goes on to comment: "This is the danger to which the scribes exposed themselves when they attributed to the agency of Satan the redemption brought by Jesus. The expulsion of demons was a sign of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God. Yet the scribal accusations against Jesus amount to a denial of the power and greatness of the Spirit of God. By assigning the action of Jesus to a demonic origin the scribes betray a perversion of spirit which, in defiance of the truth, chooses to call light darkness. In this historical context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes the conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God released through Jesus' work and act" (ibid). Thus blasphemy here is much more serious than the taking of the divine name in vain which a believer may have done before coming to repentance and faith.
It may be said to those who have been tormented by fear that they have committed the unforgivable sin that their concern is itself a sign that they have not committed the sin envisaged in Jesus' teaching here. Lane's interpretation also helps to explain the distinction drawn between blasphemy against the Son of man and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The distinction suggests that "while an attack on Jesus' own person, as son of Man and therefore 'hidden', is pardonable, any speaking against the power by which he works (i.e. the divine endowment for his messianic ministry) will not be pardoned" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 318). For such an action would be deliberately to attribute to Satan the action of God himself. (NIDNTT, v. 3, pp. 343-344)
What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Though many suggestions have been offered, I think the answer lies in the context here (Luke 12:7-12) and in the context of redemptive history. Remember that the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, and it is the Spirit who causes men to recognize who Jesus is. Hebrews 6 and 10 contain discussions of unforgivable sins, but the distinction between blasphemy against Christ and the Spirit has disappeared. Jesus seemed to be saying this: Because the Holy spirit has not yet been poured out in fullness, the Jews will be forgiven for blaspheming the Son of Man. They will be given a second chance to repent, as we see in the book of Acts. If, however, they continue to blaspheme after the Spirit has come, they will not be forgiven. But what is the sin, specifically? Since it is blasphemy, we must see it essentially as a verbal sin. In context it is the sin of saying that Jesus Christ is of the devil. Jesus was willing to excuse this blasphemy before Pentecost; but, in the new covenant era it is not longer excusable. If a person curses Jesus, but does not really know who Jesus is, that sin is forgivable. But if the Holy Spirit has borne witness to a person that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that person curses Him, it cannot be forgiven.
28. Faith and Expectation
Illustration
Larry Powell
Acts1:4-14 contains certain encouragements to the followers of Christ to be an "expectant" fellowship. With this in mind, let us consider some specific instances where expectancy is implied.
1. Acts 1:5: "For John baptized with water but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." What is the difference between John’s water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
a. John’s baptism. Water baptism was commonly practiced by the Jews long before the appearance of John. It symbolized religious purification, and in a more specialized use it was applied when new converts entered into Judaism (proselyte baptism). John, however, baptized both Jews and Gentiles as a rote of moral purification for the approaching Kingdom of God. Although John’s baptism would enable those who submitted to it to meet the "Day of the Lord," it was to be distinguished as different from a future baptism, administered by one who "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."
b. Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism consists not in symbolic gestures of initiation, but in the receiving of "power." It does not ordain anybody for, or against, the future but rather manifests itself in a spiritual experience in the present. An initiatory baptism is symbolically accomplished once, whereas the baptism of the Holy Spirit may occur quite unrehearsed many times over. The element of expectation is contained in the selected scripture by the phrase, "But before many days, you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
2. Acts 1:7-8: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father had fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." The disciples have just asked Jesus a legitimate question regarding the nature of his mission. A simple "yes" or "no" answer would not have been sufficient inasmuch as if he replied, "Yes (I have come to restore the Kingdom of Israel)," it would have been a lie, and if he had replied "No," they would have become disillusioned with him in the beginning. Instead, he informs them that it is not for them to know all the mysteries of God - but there is a consolation: "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Perhaps it is like saying to someone, "You cannot adequately define love, but nonetheless you can experience it." Here, the power of the Holy Spirit is promised, and they are encouraged to expect it in their own experience.
3. Acts 1:11: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven?" I suppose the most logical answer would have been, "Because we are bewildered!" It would have been extremely difficult to have acted otherwise while witnessing their Lord being lifted up into heaven on a cloud. If that were not enough, two men in white robes suddenly appeared to stand by them and question their amazement. In all probability, at least one of the inferences here is that rather than gazing into heaven, it would be more proper to get on with the business of the Kingdom, teaching and preaching, and doing "whatsoever I have commanded you." However, they should pursue their tasks of soul-winning with an attitude of expectancy because "this Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way."
4. Acts 1:14. "All those with one accord devoted themselves to prayer." And we may be sure that their prayers contained expectancy. Expectancy for what? For the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the return of the risen Lord.
29. Bear the Burden
Illustration
David Augsburger
Forgiveness is hard. Especially in a marriage tense with past troubles, tormented by fears of rejection and humiliation, and torn by suspicion and distrust. Forgiveness hurts. Especially when it must be extended to a husband or wife who doesn't deserve it, who hasn't earned it, who may misuse it. It hurts to forgive. Forgiveness costs. Especially in marriage when it means accepting instead of demanding repayment for the wrong done; where it means releasing the other instead of exacting revenge; where it means reaching out in love instead of relinquishing resentments. It costs to forgive...Stated psychologically, forgiveness takes place when the person who was offended and justly angered by the offender bears his own anger, and lets the other go free. Anger cannot be ignored, denied, or forgotten without doing treachery in hidden ways. It must be dealt with responsibly, honestly, in a decisive act of the will. Either the injured and justifiably angry person vents his feelings on the other in retaliation (That is an attempt at achieving justice as accuser, judge, and hangman all in one) or the injured person may choose to accept his angry feelings, bear the burden of them personally, find release through confession and prayer and set the other person free. This is forgiveness.
30. CHEEK-TURNING POWER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
How many of us are in the process of developing ulcers? How many of us are carrying resentments? How much damage is being done internally because we will not forgive someone who hurt us deeply? How much of our daily life is being colored grey by an angry mind quarreling in fantasy bouts with an adversary, an ex-husband, an ex-wife, a relative, a neighbor, a fellow worker, or even a fellow parishioner? Who are suffering from high blood pressure or even heart problems because they have not forgiven completely?
In the face of all of this, we consider the love chapter in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, for some very good advice. Saint Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes, "Love is not irritable or resentful ..."
Snow is hardly news in many parts of our nation. After a blizzard, it takes a snowplow to tackle the snowdrifts and help us become mobile again. Resentments are like snowdrifts, and forgiveness is the snowplow. In the Christian life forgiveness is a snowplow that opens roads again, removing barriers so that we can communicate and listen to those with whom we had been at odds.
When a person offends us, we feel like punching him out. Many a child has done just that on the way home from school at a predetermined spot. Those of us who are mature are more sophisticated but no less harmful as we unleash a lethal tongue, or verbally stab people behind their backs. God reminds us in the epistle that love is not resentful.
Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us some pretty tough advice while he was alive. On the subject we are considering, he says, "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Jesus states that the mere fact that we have been wronged does not give us the license to do wrong. Followers of Jesus are not to retaliate but must even be willing to suffer the same injury again. Cheek-turning power is no easy matter. It is perhaps as powerful a weapon as there is toward maintaining and even improving most human relationships. When I have been wise enough to use it, I can tell you firsthand that it works.
Love is the language of forgiveness. Love does not resent, it forgives. Cheek-turning love is Christian love in action. On our own, we seldom have the power to turn the other cheek. Such power is only possible when Jesus Christ lives within us. It comes when we practice the presence of God, inviting Jesus’ indwelling through prayer. Then as we partake of his body and blood, we not only receive forgiveness for ourselves, but we also receive the powerful presence of Jesus Christ: a presence that can cause a cheek to turn and a life of loving forgiveness to plow through snowdrifts of resentment.
31. A Great Prophet Has Arisen Among Us
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
"Shunem: Site of the Prophet Elisha's Resurrection Miracle." If they had had road signs in the days of old this might have been the sign that welcomed you to Shunem. All the people of Shunem and all the people in the cities around Shunem surely knew of Elisha's miraculous feat. This was an area known for its prophets!
Elisha's prophetic forerunner, Elijah, was the first prophet to raise a young man to life. It happened in Zarephath (1 Kings 17:8-24). Perhaps it is not surprising that Elisha also raised a young man to life. We are told, after all, that Elisha inherited a double share of Elijah's spirit!
In a story told in 2 Kings 4 we hear that Elijah came to Shunem one day and had a bite to eat at the home of a wealthy woman. Since there were no fast food restaurants in Elisha's day, he stopped quite often at the house of the Shunammite woman to get something to eat. The woman sensed that Elisha was a holy one of God. So she persuaded her husband to fix up a permanent guest room for Elisha. She invited Elisha to stop and stay with them whenever he passed through Shunem. And he did. Free room and board is a pretty good deal, after all!
Now Elisha was an honorable man. He thought he should really give this woman some kind of gift. He told his servant Gehazi to ask the Shunammite woman what gift he might give to her. Gehazi went. He discovered that the woman was quite content with what she had. She asked for nothing. "But there must be something we can give this woman," Elisha insisted to Gehazi. Then Gehazi had a wonderful idea. "This woman has no child and her husband is old," he said to Elisha. Elisha got the point. He announced to the woman of Shunem that, "At this season, when the time comes round, you shall embrace a son" (2 Kings 4:16). And it came to pass just as Elisha had promised. One day years later, the son of the woman of Shunem went out among the reapers to be with his father. Suddenly he began to complain bitterly. "Oh, my head, my head!" he shrieked.
"Carry the lad to his mother," the father ordered. The reapers did so. The boy lay on his mother's lap until noon, and then he died. The Shunammite woman carried her son straightway to Elisha's guest room and laid him on Elisha's very own bed. She then set out to Mt. Carmel determined to find Elisha. When she found the prophet she fell before him and took hold of his feet. "Did I ask my Lord for a son?" she pleaded. "Did I not say, 'Do not mislead me'?" (2 Kings 4:28).
Elisha got the point. He returned to Shunem, went to his room where the dead boy lay, shut the door and began to pray. Elisha then stretched himself upon the boy and breathed his breath into him. Soon the child sneezed seven times and then opened his eyes. "Take your son," Elisha said to the woman of Shunem.
"Shunem: Site of the Prophet Elisha's Resurrection Miracle." Thus a sign at the city gate might have read. The city of Nain was just a stone's throw down the road from Shunem. The citizens of Nain undoubtedly basked in Shunem's glory. They, too, believed themselves to live in a land where prophets do miracles."
32. Parable of the Rich Man's Wife
Illustration
Staff
Two couples stood at the altar in a double wedding ceremony. Capable, hopeful, ambitious young people they entered the ways of wedded bliss with faith and confidence.
As time wrote its story the one young man was exceedingly successful in business and year by year his income grew larger.
The other young man was successful, but his work of service never made him rich in income.
Strangely as the wealthy business man grew richer, his wife became less and less capable; so that her duties as wife, mother and homemaker became more of a burden and the care of her home and children was taken on by servants. Boredom and drink consumed her days until she became a weak and unbalanced person.
The second wife knew she was needed and carried a full load of responsibility in working with her husband to raise family, carry the cost of living and render community service.
The experiences of success and failure cemented their marriage in a commoness of understanding, which made them confident personalities and happy individuals.
By worldly gain and eminent business success the first couple wrote its social achievements with a mansion and automobiles. The second couple wrote its story in service and activity.
Wealth may impower us to do good or evil to ourselves and to others. When we measure the program and progress of our lives, we may enrich or impoverish our souls. We cannot neglect the feeding of the mind and soul with heavenly riches without severely penalizing our lives.
In the ease of the double wedding, which husband was rich?
33. One Last Chance
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
A man never opened the car door for his wife or any other woman. He felt it was a sissy Emily Post kind of thing to do and "Besides," he was fond of saying, "she doesn't have two broken arms." His table manners left much to be desired, and manners in general were looked upon by him as quite unnecessary.
After many years of marriage, the wife died and her husband was heartbroken because he truly loved her. Somehow, as the pallbearers brought her casket out of the funeral service, the husband and his family reached the hearse ahead of them. The mortician was back a few feet and, since he knew the husband quite well, he called him by name and said, "Open the door for her, will you?" The man reached for the door handle and then, for one second, just froze. He realized he had never opened a car door for her in life; now in her death it would be the first, last, and only time. It was a moment for him when years of regrets came crashing down around him.
34. GOD MADE ME, AND GOD DOESN’T MAKE ANY JUNK
Illustration
John H. Krahn
There are times in every person’s life when they suffer from feelings of inadequacy. Sometimes we even move from inadequacy to feelings of worthlessness. We feel we are not attractive enough or intelligent enough or as lucky as others. Success, as we dreamed of attaining it, has not happened to us. As we get older, childhood dreams of being someone important begin to vanish. Entering our middle forties, we begin to realize that our current position in life will not increase substantially.
The trappings of success are also elusive. We work so hard to have the good things in life and often find ourselves with little time or energy to enjoy them. There is no way to extend the 168 hours which comprise each week. The husband works fifty or more hours a week, and the wife works so the kids can go to college. In the process of trying to enhance the collective life of the family, less and less time is left to spend together sharing one another’s love and happiness. There is little wonder that we so often feel uptight and junky.
But God’s good word is that he made us, and he doesn’t make junk. In the Bible we read that we were created in the image of God. We were molded in the image of our Maker. Like God we can reason, we have a mind, a memory and a will. God even put us in charge of everything he created. God was pleased with his workmanship of man and said, "It is good." He made nothing more special or more beautiful than us. Made in the image of God, we even have the ability to control much of our destiny.
We should not think of ourselves as less than God thought of us. Look at your hands. They’re hands very much like the hands of Jesus. And Jesus was no junk. There should no more be a junky John or junky Mary or junky Kathy than a junky Jesus. Jesus was a man, and like us in every way with the exception of sin. And that is the difference. For you see, sin is the chief purveyor of junk in our lives. It was Adam and Eve’s sin of trying to be as God that tarnished the fullness of their image of God. It made them less than what God wanted for them. Sin brought with it pain and death. It pushed them away from God.
Yes, God made each of us, and he doesn’t make junk. We produce the junk in our lives when we let temptation get the best of us, when we try to attain unattainable goals and then labor under feelings of failure, when we get our priorities all mixed up, and when we walk life’s way apart from God.
Let’s not live one more day of our precious lives in a manner less than God desires. We confess our sins before the Almighty. We welcome Jesus’ entrance into our lives with all the power of the Holy Spirit. We pray, "Lord, lead me onto beautiful paths of meaningful life." And we boldly proclaim to ourselves and before the world, "God made me, and God doesn’t make any junk."
35. Getting Even
Illustration
After 17 years of marriage, a man dumped his wife for a younger woman.
The downtown luxury apartment was in his name and he wanted to remain there with his new love so he asked the wife to move out and then he would buy her another place.
The wife agreed to this, but asked that she be given 3 days on her own there, to pack up her things. While he was gone, the first day she lovingly put her personal belongings into boxes and crates and suitcases.
On the second day, she had the movers come and collect her things.
On the third day, she sat down for the last time at their candlelit dining table, soft music playing in the background, and feasted on a pound of shrimp and a bottle of Chardonnay.
When she had finished, she went into each room and deposited a few of the resulting shrimp shells into the hollow of the curtain rods. She then cleaned up the kitchen and left.
The husband came back, with his new girl, and all was bliss for the first few days. Then it started; slowly but surely. Clueless, the man could not explain why the place smelled so bad. They tried everything; cleaned & mopped and aired the place out. Vents were checked for dead rodents, carpets were steam cleaned, air fresheners were hung everywhere. Exterminators were brought in, the carpets were replaced, and on it went.
Finally, they could take it no more and decided to move.
The moving company arrived and did a very professional packing job, taking everything to their new home...including the curtain rods.
36. The Fault Box
Illustration
Source Unknown
A couple married for 15 years began having more than usual disagreements. They wanted to make their marriage work and agreed on an idea the wife had. For one month they planned to drop a slip in a "Fault" box. The boxes would provide a place to let the other know about daily irritations. The wife was diligent in her efforts and approach: "leaving the jelly top off the jar," "wet towels on the shower floor," "dirty socks not in hamper," on and on until the end of the month. After dinner, at the end of the month, they exchanged boxes. The husband reflected on what he had done wrong. Then the wife opened her box and began reading. They were all the same, the message on each slip was, "I love you!"
37. An Angel Came to Joseph
Illustration
Samuel G. Candler
We too often forget about poor Joseph. Every year, we tend to focus on the story of Mary. But this year, it's Joseph.
Now, if the angel can appear to Mary, and then also appear to Joseph, there's a lesson in that. That means that the angel can appear to you and me, too. In the Bible, the annunciation does not occur only once, but twice-not just to a woman, but also to a man.
The Bible, then, carries an implicit message that God does appear over and over again, to various sorts of folks. Matthew and Luke both have it right, but they are different stories. God continues to come into the world, but we have to trust other sources!
What are you giving for Christmas this year? I do not mean what are you getting. We all want something wonderful, I am sure. But what are you giving for Christmas?
The greatest gift you can give this year is to believe in someone's dreams. The greatest gift you can give is to have faith in someone else; believe in their dreams. Believe in the dreams of the person you love. Believe in the dream of your husband. Believe in the dream of your wife. Believe in the dreams of your children. Believe in the dream of your hero, your leader, your friend. Believe in their dreams!
38. Getting Under Someone's Skin
Illustration
Bill Bouknight
In the original Aramaic which Jesus spoke, the word "merciful" means literally "to get under someone's skin." It means to wear his skin, as it were; to see life from his perspective, to stand in his shoes. It means more than sympathy; it means active empathy or merciful understanding.
Let me illustrate. A prominent minister was holding a weekend seminar at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, several years ago. He kept noticing a man in the front row nodding sleepily. This aggravated the speaker. Preachers don't like for folks to go to sleep on them. We don't have that problem here since we armed the ushers with those 36-foot extendable fishing rods so they can tap any nodding worshipper on the head.
The speaker at Junaluska though to himself: Wonder why the man didn't stay home if he couldn't stay awake? During the lunch break, a woman approached the speaker and said, "Sir, let me apologize for my husband's drowsiness. He is undergoing chemotherapy. The doctors have given him a medication to control the side-effects, but it makes him very sleepy. I tried to persuade him to stay home today, but he said, "I must go as long as I'm able. I never know when I will no longer be able to gather with God's people."
Suddenly that speaker's attitude toward the drowsy man was transformed. Why? The wife had enabled him to get under the skin of her husband and really understand him. That is the quality of mercy.
39. The Tradition of the Put Down
Illustration
Mark Trotter
Someone gave me a book once entitled, The Second Book of Insults. Evidently the first book was so successful the publisher thought it deserved a sequel. I will confess that I enjoyed reading the book. It is in the grand tradition of a certain kind of comedy called the "put-down." We love to see the pretentious slip on a banana peel. It is that kind of humor.
There is a similar tradition in sports. We love to see the underdog beat the top dog. Which is why we look forward to the Padres meeting the Yankees in the World Series.
There is even a tradition of put-down in the Bible, probably because the Bible was written by Jews, who spent most of their history being shoved around by great empires. There are songs in the Bible, like the Magnificat, which Mary sings at the time of the annunciation to her by the angel, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. He has knocked the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree." That's a put-down.
The English are the masters of the put-down. Many of the entries into that anthology of insults came from England. Like the story of George Bernard Shaw, who was invited to a woman's house for tea. She was one of those people who liked to "collect" celebrities so that she, herself, might be considered a celebrity. She sent Shaw her card, which read, "Lady So-and-So will be at home Thursday from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m." Shaw wrote a note on the card and sent it back, and said, "Mr. George Bernard Shaw likewise."
Winston Churchill was equally adept at the put-down. There is a famous exchange between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor. Lady Astor did not like Winston Churchill, so one day she said to him, "If I were your wife, I'd put poison in your tea." Churchill said, "If I were your husband, I'd drink it."
They are masters of the put-down, George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill. So when you have an anecdote in which they battle each other, it is a collector's item. Here it is. Bernard Shaw sent two tickets to his latest play opening in London to Churchill with this note, "Here are two tickets for the opening night of my new play, one for you and one for a friend, if you have one." Churchill sent them back with this note, "I cannot attend opening night. Send me two tickets for the next night, if there is one."
I suppose wherever you go, wherever there are hierarchical institutions, or any institutions for that matter, you will have concern about status, some people in upper echelons of power and others below them. The people below are probably telling these put-downs, stories about the people they hope to replace someday. Every group arranges itself according to status. People ask, "Where do I fit in in this group?" Or, "Can I make a contribution?" "Will it not be received?" "Can I be myself, or will I be put down?"
40. As a Parent I Would...
Illustration
John Drescher
We often regret the things we should have done, or done more of, with out children. So, if you want to improve the overall health of your children makes these "I would" admonitions part of your life:
I would love my wife/husband more. In the closeness of family life it is easy to take each other for granted and let a dullness creep in that can dampen even the deepest love. So, I would love the mother/father of my children more and be freer in letting them see that love.
I would develop feelings of belonging. If children do not feel that they belong in the family, they will soon find their primary group elsewhere. I would use meal times more to share happenings of the day instead of hurrying through them. I'd find more time for games or projects which all could join.
I would laugh more with my children. The best way to make children good is to make them happy. I see now that I was, many times, far too serious. I must always be careful that I do not communicate that being a parent is a constant problem.
I would be a better listener. I believe that there is a vital link between listening to children's concerns when they are young and the extent to which they will share their concerns with their parents when they are older.
I would do more encouraging. There is probably nothing that stimulates children to love life and seek accomplishment more than sincere praise when they have done well.
I would try to share God more intimately. We are not whole persons when we stress only the physical, social and intellectual aspects of life. We are spiritual beings, and if the world is to know God and his will, parents must be the primary conveyors. For my part, I would strive to share my faith with my children, using informal settings and unplanned happenings as occasions to speak of my relationship with God.
41. Teamwork in Finances
Illustration
Goddard Sherman
The wife had been poring over the family's financial figures and finally said to her husband, "Well, I've worked out a budget—now you'll have to work out a raise!"
42. True Love
Illustration
Ann Landers
Years ago the following letter was sent to Ann Landers. It's a great image of true love:
Dear Ann Landers: I’m going to tell you about a love story that I witness every time I go to the nursing home to see my husband who has Alzheimer’s disease. Unfortunately, I know firsthand how this terrible illness affects family members, but I would like the world to know what love really is. I see a man who, I understand, has spent the last eight years caring for his wife who has Alzheimer’s. They have been married more than 50 years. He cooks and feeds her every bite of food she eats. He has bathed her and dressed her every day all these years. They have no other family. She lost a baby at birth and they never had any more children.
I cannot describe the tenderness and love that man shows for his wife. She is unable to recognize anyone, including him. The only things she shows any interest in are two baby dolls. They are never out of her hands.
I observed him when I parked my car beside his the other day. He sat in his old pickup truck for a few minutes, then he patted down, what little hair he had, straightened the threadbare collar of his shirt and looked in the mirror for a final check before going in to see his wife. It was as if he were courting her. They have been partners all these years and have seen each other under all kinds of circ*mstances, yet he carefully groomed himself before he called on his wife, who wouldn’t even know him. This is an example of the love and commitment the world needs today.
43. The Frail Old Man
Illustration
Staff
A frail old man went to live with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year-old grandson.The old man's hands trembled, his eyesight was blurred, and his step faltered.The family ate together at the table. But the elderly grandfather's shaky hands and failing sight made eating difficult. Peas rolled off his spoon onto the floor.When he grasped the glass, milk spilled on the tablecloth.The son and daughter-in-law became irritated with the mess.
"We must do something about Grandfather," said the son."I've had enough of his spilled milk, noisy eating, and food on the floor."So the husband and wife set a small table in the corner.There Grandfather ate alone while the rest of the family enjoyed dinner.Since Grandfather had broken a dish or two, his food was served in a wooden bowl.
When the family glanced in Grandfather's direction, sometimes he had a tear in his eye as he sat alone.Still, the only words the couple had for him were sharp admonitions when he dropped a fork or spilled food.The four-year-old watched it all in silence.
One evening before supper, the father noticed his son playing with wood scraps on the floor.He asked the child sweetly, "What are you making?"Just as sweetly, the boy responded, "Oh, I am making a little bowl for you and Mama to eat your food in when I grow up."
The four year old smiled and went back to work.The words so struck the parents that they were speechless. Then tears started to stream down their cheeks.Though no word was spoken, both knew what must be done.That evening the husband took Grandfather's hand and gently led him back to the family table.For the remainder of his days he ate every meal with the family.And for some reason, neither husband nor wife seemed to care any longer when a fork was dropped, milk spilled, or the tablecloth soiled
Note: Traditional versions of this story can be found in a number of traditions, in Chinese lore, where a valuable porcelain bowl is broken.A version in Russian, Irish and Hispanic cultures relates the grandfather sent to a small cold room in the house.When the son is told to take an old worn rug to the grandfather to wrap up in he starts cutting the rug (or blanket) in half, when asked why, the son replies, "I am saving half for you when you are old.
44. Building a Bridge
Illustration
Staff
They say a wife and husband, bit by bit,
Can rear between themselves a mighty wall,
So thick they cannot speak with ease through it,
Nor can they see across it, it stands so tall.
Its nearness frightens them, but each alone
Is powerless to tear its bulk away; and each
Dejected wishes he had known
For such a wall, some magic thing to say.
So let us build with master art, my dear,
A bridge of love between your life and mine,
A bridge of tenderness, and very near,
A bridge of understanding, strong and fine,
Till we have formed so many lovely ties,
There never will be room for walls to rise.
45. Behavior Change
Illustration
Tony Campolo
A pastorcounseled a man who was falling out of love with his wife. He advised the man tothink of all the ways he could make life happier for his wife and then do them. A few days later my friend received a phone call in which the husband related the following:
"Every day I leave for work, put in a hard day, come home dirty and sweaty, stumble in the back door, go to the refrigerator, get something to drink, and then go into the rec room and watch television until supper time. After talking to you, I decided I would do better than that in the future. So yesterday, before I left work, I showered and shaved and put on a clean shirt. On the way home I stopped at the florist and bought a bouquet of roses.
Instead of going in the back door as I usually do, I went to the front door and rang the doorbell. My wife opened the door, took one look at me, and started to cry. When I asked her what was wrong she said, 'It's been a horrible day. First Billy broke his leg and had to have it put in a cast. I no sooner returned home from the hospital when your mother called and told me that she is coming to stay for three weeks. I tried to do the wash and the washing machine broke and there is water all over the basem*nt. And now you have to come home drunk!"'
46. Who Moved?
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
You may have seen that cartoon that pictured an older couple driving down the road on Sunday afternoon.She is leaning against the door on her side of the car and he is driving. They're eager to get where they're going, but they're slowed down dramatically by a young couple who are cuddling in the car ahead of them and in no hurry at all. Finding it impossible to pass, the older couple finally began to strike up conversation.The older woman looks across at her husband, then looks ahead at the young couple cuddling and asks her husband, "Why don't we sit together like that anymore?" Quick as a flash, he responds, "I haven't moved."
A relationship between persons and between us and god can grow cold over the years. That's not God's fault. God doesn't move away from us, but we can move away from god. Likewise there may be a loved one - a husband, a wife, a child, or parent, with whom your relationship has grown cold. You may be to blame. You may be the one who moved.You can do something about it.
47. We Don't Like Pop
Illustration
Michael P. Green
A wife came to the conclusion that carbonated drinks were having negative physical effects on her family and herself and so decided that they should give them up. But how would she convince her three-year-old daughter, who liked them so much, that it was necessary to stop drinking them?
As the wife was telling her husband of her decision, the little girl, who had heard the conversation, piped up to ask, “Mommy, we don’t like pop any more?” Mommy said “That’s right!”—and that was all it took.
Oh, for such a readiness to give up something when we learn that God does not want us to do it.
48. The Honorable Prince
Illustration
Unknown
It is said that Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, once had captured a prince and his family. When they came before him, the monarch asked the prisoner, "What will you give me if I release you?"
"The half of my wealth," was his reply.
"And if I release your children?"
"Everything I possess."
"And if I release your wife?"
"Your Majesty, I will give myself."
Cyrus was so moved by his devotion that he freed them all. As they returned home, the prince said to his wife, "Wasn't Cyrus a handsome man!"
With a look of deep love for her husband, she said to him, "I didn't notice. I could only keep my eyes on you--the one who was willing to give himself for me."
49. Mother Spells Bankrupt
Illustration
Staff
The love behind a gift is more important than the gift itself. The person who has learned this will not be frustrated because his gift is small, like the husband who wrote the following lament to his wife on Mother's Day:
M is for the mink coat you want, dear,
O is for the opal ring you crave,
T is for the tiny car you'd love, sweet,
H is for the hat that makes you rave,
E is for the earrings you'd admire, love,
R is for the rug on which you'd tread;
Put them all together, they spell bankrupt,
So I'm giving you this handkerchief instead.
50. A Servant in Saigon
Illustration
Keith Wagner
To be servants requires courage, sacrifice and lots of love. Jack Canfield and Mark Hansen tell the story of Betty Tisdale. (Chicken Soup for the Soul) She was the wife of a Naval Doctor in Vietnam. She had compassion on the hundreds of orphans in Saigon. She made 14 trips to Saigon by using her life savings. With great determination she managed to airlift orphans from Vietnam during the time it was falling into the hands of the North Vietnamese. It was not a simple task. First, she needed birth certificates. She went to the hospital and created them herself. She managed to make 219 eligible certificates that satisfied the government. Next she had to find a place for the children to stay when they arrived at Ft. Benning, Georgia here in the states. Again she met resistance and the Secretary of the Army wouldn't answer her calls. Determined to carry out her mission, Betty called his mother and pleaded her case. Virtually overnight, her son, the Secretary of the Army, responded.
Now she was challenged as to how to get the children safely out of Vietnam. She was unable to charter a plane. She went to Ambassador Graham Martin and pleaded for some form of transportation. He agreed to help as long as the Vietnamese government cleared their release. Two Air Force transport planes flew the children to the Philippines. Because her husband was dedicated to helping his wife he used $21,000 of his own money to charter a United Airlines plane to take the children to the states. Within a month all 219 children were adopted and placed in homes in the US.
When Jesus advocates a life of self denial, he is not talking about being a martyr, nor is he wanting us all to be Mother Teresa or a Betty Tisdale. He is talking about denying ourselves the demand for power, honor and status and being servants.
Faith is a paradox. Life in the kingdom is not acquired with honors, prizes, achievements, awards and success. It is realized with sacrificial love, unwavering faith and belief that God has a seat reserved just for us. It's better than the 50 yard line. It is not just good for a single game or a single season. It is good for eternity.
Showing
1
to
50
of
627
results
- 'An effort to suffocate': Experts warn of emerging threats in America's religious freedom battle
- Hundreds gather, dozens baptized at revival event on Ohio State University campus
- 12-year-old Christian girl forcibly converted by Muslim man who kidnapped her in Pakistan
- Episcopal diocese rejects 'misinformation' amid claims it failed to enforce 'safe church' policies
- Abortions on the rise since Roe reversal thanks to abortion pill spike: report
- 'Christian nationalism' label emerges from ignorance and intimidation, panelists warn
- State gov't attacks on pro-life pregnancy care centers on the rise, legal expert says
- Taliban bans women from speaking, showing bare faces in public
- Unconstitutional: Religious broadcasters, churches file lawsuit against Johnson Amendment
- Christian man sentenced to death over TikTok video sparks outcry
- German Pastor to Pay for Anti-LGBTQ Statements
- Should Christians Across Denominations Be Singing the Same Songs?
- Rwanda Explains Why It Closed Thousands of Churches. Again.
- Activist Lila Rose Under Fire for Suggesting Trump Hasn’t Earned the Pro-Life Vote
- More Christian Colleges Will Close. Can They Finish Well?
- Choose This (Labor) Day Whom You Will Serve
- What to Watch for in ‘Rings of Power’ Season 2
- When to Respond to Slander (and When to Ignore It)
- It Is Not Best for Man to Eat Alone
- David Bentley Hart’s Brain-Breaking Argument for the Supremacy of the Mind
- Mountain selfie costs 23-year-old gymnast her life
- Carmelites find St. Teresa of Ávila's body still incorrupt after opening coffin for study of relics
- 'He's in big trouble': GOP adviser says Trump knows he's losing votes on key issue
- Loony MAGA 'Prophet': Trump's Been President Last Four Years
- I was a Trump hater — until I learned the truth of the media’s ‘very fine’ lies
- Donald Trump chases politics and stabs evangelical supporters in the back
- Amitabh Bachchan Schools KBC 16 Contestant On View Of Unmarried Women As ‘Burden’ & We All Are In For It
- Hillsong Founders Launch ‘Online Church’ And Ask For Money
- The Sovereignty of the Latter-day Saints
- Who Is Dan Bilzerian? The Israel-Obsessed, Jew-Hating Misogynist That Elon Musk Protects
- A Shroud of Evidence
- There Never Was a Pro-Life Case for Trump
- Donald Trump and the Sovereign Rights of God
- How a Church Fought Back Against a Liberal Takeover — And Won
- St. Teresa of Ávila's Body Remains Incorrupt After Almost 5 Centuries
- Faith of My Fathers
- Chinese Christians are the Canary in the Coal Mine
- Mohamad Jebara, 'Reclaimer' of the Quran
- Algerian Man Charged Over Synagogue Arson Attack in France
- Religion is America's Mighty Engine of Charitable Goodness
