1 You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure. 2 We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. 3 For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. 4 On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. 5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed--God is our witness. 6 We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else. 7 As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. 8 We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us. 9 Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.
10 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. 11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, 12 encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. 14 For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.
In You and Through You
1 Thessalonians 2:9-13
Sermon
by Billy D. Strayhorn
In the book, How To Find Out Who You Are, Nelson Price reports that 15 prominent college professors took this challenge: "If all the books on the art of moving human beings into action were condensed into one brief statement, what would that statement be?" The result of their deliberations were four statements:
What the mind attends to, it considers;
What the mind does not attend it to, it dismisses.
What the mind attends to continually, it believes.
What the mind believes, it eventually does.
If you remember, Paul said something very similar in Philippians 4:8 "Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
Society puts it in even simpler terms through the acronym GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. It was originally a computer term that meant that if invalid data was entered into a system, the resulting output would also be invalid. That same argument holds true for all aspects of life from raising kids to dealing with worries to personal health.
But the inverse of that statement is true as well, as Paul stated, and we can still use the same acronym. All we have to do is replace the definition of the letter "G." It could stand for Grace or Goodness or God. Grace In, Grace Out. Goodness In, Goodness Out. God In, God Out. And I think, at least in part any way, that's what Paul meant when he wrote the passage for today.
1 Thessalonians 2:9-13 (NRSV)
[9] You remember our labor and toil, brothers and sisters; we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.
[10] You are witnesses, and God also, how pure, upright, and blameless our conduct was toward you believers.
[11] As you know, we dealt with each one of you like a father with his children,
[12] urging and encouraging you and pleading that you lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.
[13] We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God's word, which is also at work in you believers.
Paul talks about "God's word, which is also at work in you believers."
GIGO, God's Word In, God's Word Out. Or the title of the message God's Word, In You and Through You. And that's what Missions is all about. So, how do we do that? Well, first we've got to Get God In and then Let God Out.
I. Getting God In
The first part is really quite simple. It does take some personal daily and weekly discipline but it is quite simple. The daily discipline is study and prayer. Now I'm not talking about 6 hours in the class room. But, I am talking about more than just reading the Upper Room, as much as I love the Upper Room Daily Devotional. It takes the discipline of spending time in the Word, reading the Bible. It involves sitting quietly in prayer and quietly listening to God. And it takes the weekly discipline of corporate Worship, the fellowship and energy of worshiping with others.
Dr. Vaughn Baker, our Revival preacher told a story about a man who was headed out of church one day as he passed the preacher, the preacher said, "Glad you decided to come this morning." The man stopped and told the preacher, "I didn't decide to come this morning, I decided to come years ago."
Bible study, prayer and worship aren't something we decide to do on a spur of the moment. Or something we do when there is nothing else more exciting to do. Bible study, prayer and worship are the meat and potatoes of getting God in.
They are the minimum daily requirements for a healthy relationship with God. Are you getting God in?
II. Letting God Out
A. And then there's letting God out. That's the Stewardship and Missions part. Letting God live In You and Through You.
I first became involved in Missions through Heifer Project when I was asked to help deliver hogs to Mississippi. I can't tell you the impact of sharing with those families who were recipients has had on my life.
And then in the first church we served there was a college aged girl, Anna Fletcher, who became a Missionary to Thailand.
We would get regular letters from her and the children in the Children's Home she was working and teaching. She was an absolute inspiration and put a face on the needs of the children and their families. She tended chickens and hogs, worked in the garden, helped plant rice, harvest all the other vegetables, plus she taught school and Sunday School and lead a women's Bible Study. She also shared the heartache of watching children die from simple illnesses because they didn't have medicine or money for medicine and immunizations.
It was at this church that I truly discovered the power of missions and how much one woman could do. Her name was Violet. She was five feet tall in high heels and four foot eight without. She had taught Kindergarten Sunday School for about a million years.
But her passion was Missions. Every year our Annual Conference had a Conference Wide Missions Drive. And Violet made it her responsibility to see that Midway Locust Grove UMC brought in the most health kits, bandages, school kits and blankets. This little church that averaged about 100 in worship brought over 2,400 health kits one year. More than all the others in our district combined.
Violet would watch the newspaper ads and would stand up and say, "This week is toothbrush week. Such and such a store has them on sale for three for a dollar. Go buy $5.00 worth." Or she would announce, Sears or Penney's is having a white sale, washcloths and towels are on sale go buy 5 or 6 of each." Every now and then she would host a health kit day where members would gather and in an assembly line format, begin putting them together. The Sunday after, Violet would report how many we had and how many more we needed or how many of the items we needed to complete.
Violet also had the church collecting for sewing kits, layette kits and school kits. The last year I was there we took 12 pick up truck loads of items to the Missions Event. Most of those trucks had stock racks on them. So they were full. the look on Violet's face was awesome as she sat as the passenger in my pickup and we pulled into the Building and reported that there were 11 pickup trucks, just like mine, filled to the brim all from one church.
B. That's what happens when we work together. That's what happens when you spend time every day getting God in, you find some way of letting God out. God's Word works In You and Through You.
It's the same with our tithes and offerings. When you give they become God's Word working In You and Through You. When we give, God uses those gifts in remarkable ways. Oh sure, part of it is used to keep the lights on and building cool or warm, but if the lights were off or the building was hot in the summer and cold in the winter, who would we attract? But when we're comfortable we have a more inviting place where people can experience the love of God and witness God's Word working In You and Through You.
Stewardship is all about my response to the gift of God's Grace in my life. When I open my heart to God and get God grace in through Bible Study, Prayer and Worship, God is too big to keep in my heart and I have to let God's love and grace out in as many ways as possible.
My Stewardship of giving monetarily is just one of the ways I respond. But I know that my tithes and offerings make a difference. They help change lives and help strengthen lives that have been changed by the love of Jesus Christ. His love is something we can't keep to ourselves.
It has to live In Us and Through Us.
Conclusion
A man was driving to work when a truck drove through a stop sign, hit his car broadside, and knocked him out. Passersby pulled him out of the wreck and revived him. But he began a terrific struggle and had to be tranquilized by the medics.
Later, when he was finally calm, they asked him why he struggled so much. He said, "I remember the impact, then nothing. I woke up on a concrete slab in front of a huge, flashing Shell sign. And somebody was standing in front of the S." (1)
There are a lot of people out there who can't see the "S." They have no idea that there is anything else. The Word of God is working In You and Through You. When you give, your tithes and offerings make a difference in the life of every member of this congregation. They make a difference in our district, in our Conference, in our Nation and in the world. All because you said "Yes!" to God and allowed the Word of God to work In You and Through You. GIGO. God In, God Out.
1. Homiletics, October 2005, p. 56.
CSS Publishing Company, Inc., From the Pulpit, by Billy D. Strayhorn
Because Paul wisely left Thessalonica when the opposition grew much worse, he was accused by some of being a charlatan, of peddling the gospel for personal profit. Paul denies that he came to them out of error or impure motives and insists he was not trying to trick them (2:3). He then defend…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure. 2 We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. 3 For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. 4 On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. 5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed--God is our witness. 6 We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else. 7 As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. 8 We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us. 9 Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.
10 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. 11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, 12 encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. 14 For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.
2:1–3:13 Review · The gospel arrives in Thessalonica:Having finished the initial thanksgiving (1:2–10), Paul now begins the body of the letter. The themes of the thanksgiving are now taken up again and elaborated, with 2:1–12 explaining the character of the apostles and their entry while 2:13–16 reminds the church of their reception of the gospel in the midst of great persecution. The following section (2:17–3:13) recalls the story of the apostles’ absence from the church and their continued care and concern for the Thessalonians.
2:1–12 · The apostolic entrance:At first glance, this section appears to be a defense against criticisms levied against the character of the apostles. The critique of their character may have originated with the unconverted Thessalonians (2:14) or perhaps members of the church itself who questioned why the apostles came, left, but then did not return. What kind of people were these men? But the relationship with the church was warm and strong (3:6), and moreover, we have no indication that the critique came from outside the church. Some scholars, however, argue that this section is not a defense. Rather, the language is similar to that of Cynic philosophers who distinguished themselves from other, less honorable philosophers. On this reading, Paul presents himself as a moral example that others should follow, as did those philosophers. However, although philosophers used personal examples as a means to teach ethics, in 2:1–12 the apostles do not exhort the believers to imitate their character. What, then, motivated Paul to include this teaching? The most likely reason was that the situation itself called for it: the apostles left soon after the church was founded, and Paul had not returned. This explains the long discourse regarding Paul’s attempts to return in 2:17–20, the rehearsal of the motivations for sending Timothy in 3:1–6, and the notes about a future visit in 3:7–12. The question that arose was about the apostles’ character and concern for the church. First Thessalonians 2:1–12 is the beginning of a response that spans chapters 2 and 3.
In 2:1, Paul speaks about his coming to Thessalonica as his “entry” (NIV “visit”; see comments on 1:9). While Paul may refer either to the character of the apostolic mission or its results among the Thessalonians (as 1Thess. 3:5), the emphasis in this section (2:1–12) is on the character of the ministers. However, character and results cannot be neatly separated. Paul and Silas had suffered by being beaten and jailed before coming to Thessalonica (2:2a; see Acts 16:19–40; Phil. 1:30). Not only were they stripped, beaten with rods, and jailed, but they were also publicly dishonored and insulted by this treatment. Aristotle said of this type of dishonor, “The insult consists of the injury and pain by which the one who suffers is dishonored” (Rhetoric 2.2.5–6). Despite this socially weakened position, Paul says, “But with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel” (2:2b). The Cynics highly prized the ability to speak with boldness in spite of opposition and criticism, but the source of Paul’s boldness was God. Paul adds (2:2c) that when preaching in Thessalonica he and his companions faced continued opposition, yet they still preached the gospel.
The gospel proclamation was not simply a presentation of facts but a call to respond to the divine initiative (cf. Luke 3:18; Acts 2:40). The apostles’ exhortation or summons was not based on a false message (“error”), nor was it preached with impure or immoral motives such as greed or glory (2:3–6). Neither did they use deceitful methods, employing rhetorical trickery to persuade their audience (cf. 1Cor. 2:4). Their character was such that they had been tested and approved by God for the mission of preaching the gospel (2:4a). Leadership in the church was to be examined and approved (Rom. 14:18; 2Cor. 13:7; 1Tim. 3:10), but the most important examination and approval comes from God (Rom. 16:10; 2Cor. 10:18; 2Tim. 2:15). Inscriptions from the era indicate that those who served in public office should be approved by others. Since the apostles were commissioned by God, they seek to please him (1Thess. 2:4b; Gal. 1:10; 2Tim. 2:4). The verb translated “please” appears in inscriptions to designate the good service of citizens and officials on behalf of a city or its people, communicating the idea of service rendered in the interests of others. The apostles served the Lord and were not seeking glory from people (2:6). God continued to test their character and motives.
In 2:5 Paul invokes two witnesses, the Thessalonians and God himself, to attest to the apostles’ character (see also 2:10; Deut. 17:6; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Aristotle, distinguishing between flatterers, who want something out of you, and true friends, said: “The man who always joins in the pleasures of his companions ... [and] does so for the sake of getting something by it in the shape of money or money’s worth ... is a Flatterer” (Nicomachean Ethics 1127a). The apostles were the Thessalonians’ true friends and not flatterers who sought their own gain. Nor were they out for glory (2:6a). “Praise” or “glory” is the honor, prestige, or fame that a person might receive, which was sought diligently by the sophists of the era. Epictetus (Discourse 3.23.23–24) caricatured those who wanted nothing more than to hear the praise of others: “ ‘But praise me.’ What do you mean by ‘praise’? ‘Cry out to me, “Bravo!” or “Marvelous!” ’ ” The apostles would have nothing of this public adulation.
On the contrary, the apostles’ care for the Thessalonians was like that of a nurse for a child (2:6b–7). Here Paul, Silas, and Timothy are “apostles.” Although the term “burden” could refer to a financial obligation placed on someone (as in 2:9), here as in other contexts it suggests a weight of authority that some important person exercises over others. They did not impose their apostolic authority when they ministered to the Thessalonians (see 2Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 1Pet. 5:3). Rather, they were “gentle among you,” as a wet nurse. (See NIV note; instead of “gentle,” some Greek manuscripts read: “infants” [NIV “young children”].) A wet nurse (Greek trophos; NIV “nursing mother”) was a woman hired under contract to breast-feed another person’s baby, but she could also be in charge of the child and his or her education. As such, she was a person of great confidence and affection. But here Paul compares his nurture of the Thessalonians with the tenderness of a wet nurse who feeds and cares for her own children, not those of another.
The apostles shared their lives with the Thessalonians because of their care for them (2:8). They longed deeply for the Thessalonians and committed themselves to them (cf. 3:1). They shared the gospel of God (see 1Thess. 1:5; 2:2, 4, 9; 2Thess. 2:14). Unlike those sophists who would come to town just for gain or glory, the apostles gave both the message and themselves to their hearers. Indeed, they made sure that their presence would not be a financial burden for these new believers: “Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you” (2:9). The apostles also received gifts from the Philippian church during this time (Phil. 4:15–16), although they worked to sustain themselves (2Thess. 3:8–9). Paul’s trade was tentmaking (Acts 18:1–5), and he may have even been up before dawn working (“night and day” [2:9]). This verse may reflect the economic realities of the church (2Cor. 8:1–2).
Paul once again invokes the Thessalonians and God as two witnesses (2:5) who can testify to the character of the apostles’ conduct (2:10). The messengers’ conduct had been holy or pure (the Greek word describes actions that conform to what is permitted or ordained by the divine). They had also behaved righteously or justly; that is, their conduct conformed to human and divine norms. Marcus Aurelius said that Socrates “could be satisfied with being just in his relationships with men and pious in his attitude towards the gods” (Meditations 7.66). The apostles acted in conformity with both divine and human law and fulfilled all their obligations to both (“blameless” [2:10]).
Paul’s care for them was like that of a wet nurse with her own children but also like that of a father (2:11). He and his associates acted as an ancient father would by training them in the moral life. Philo said the father should teach the law to his children and instruct them “concerning what they should choose and avoid, that is to say, to choose virtues and avoid vices and the activities to which these lead” (On the Special Laws 2.228). So Paul adds, “encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (2:12). “Encouraging” is a strong word, frequently used to refer to moral exhortation (Rom. 12:1; 1Cor. 1:10; and 1Thess. 3:2; 4:1, 10; 5:11, 14; 2Thess. 3:12). “Comforting” can mean “consoling,” but also, as here, it can speak of encouraging and persuading a person to take a certain course of action. “Urging” is the strongest of the three, meaning “insisting” or “requiring.” The three together underscore the apostles’ insistence in their moral instruction. The goal was that the Thessalonians “live lives worthy of God” (2:12; cf. Eph. 4:1; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10). The idea of living a life worthy of God is found in Jewish moral instruction (Wisdom of Solomon 3:5; 7:15; Sirach 14:11) as well as Jesus’s teaching (Matt. 10:37–38). Greek inscriptions sometimes speak of those who lived lives worthy of a deity, the idea being that the person conducted him- or herself in conformity with the standards demanded by the relationship with the exalted figure. Here that figure is God himself, the one who called the person to his kingdom and glory. This calling was both an honor and an obligation.
2:13–16 · Second thanksgiving: This section opens with the epistle’s second thanksgiving (cf. 1Thess. 1:2–10). The apostles leave the explanation of the apostolic mission (2:1–12), focus on the Thessalonians’ response (2:13), and then move to reflect on their sufferings (2:14). This final note leads the authors to compare the sufferings of the Thessalonians with those of the churches of Judea at the hands of the Jewish community there. Paul follows with a severe critique of his Jewish contemporaries (2:15–16), which some have suggested is a non-Pauline addition to the epistle since it seems foreign to the rest of the letter and appears to contradict Paul’s positive attitude regarding his own people in Romans 9–11. But Paul’s critique stands within the Jewish prophetic tradition. God has not rejected his people (Rom. 11:1–5), and there is hope of a national salvation (Rom. 11:23–26). Far from being anti-Semitic, Paul loved his people (Rom. 9:1–5; 10:1; 11:13–16). The strong polemic in these verses stems from the repeated encounters Paul had with those of his people who opposed the gospel. These verses do not justify any form of anti-Semitic attitudes or actions.
The thanksgiving begins with the recognition that the Thessalonians received the gospel as a divine and not simply human message (2:13). To give thanks to one’s benefactor was one of the most important social obligations in antiquity, whether the benefactor was human or divine. The Thessalonians received the divine teaching as it truly is, the word of God (cf. Gal. 1:11–12), since it came in divine power (1Thess. 1:5). God spoke to them and called them through this proclamation (2Thess. 2:14; 2Cor. 5:20), and their reception of that message was the moment of their conversion (Acts 8:14; 1Thess. 1:5). Paul highlights the continued divine activity through this word—it “is indeed at work in you who believe” (2:13). The message of the gospel has the power to transform people’s lives.
Paul introduces one of the evidences that demonstrated their true reception of the gospel: their suffering persecution (2:14; 1Thess. 3:3–4): “For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews” (2:14). While many early congregations suffered for their adherence to the gospel (Acts 14:22; 1Pet. 5:9), the churches in Judea were recognized as the first fruits of God’s work in the new covenant (Rom. 15:26–27; Gal. 1:17–24; 2:1–10) and enjoyed high honor among the other churches (cf. the Jerusalem council in Acts 15). Paul at one time had been a perpetrator of the sufferings of those churches (Acts 8:3; Gal. 1:22–23; 1Tim. 1:13). Persecution against them broke out with the death of Stephen (Acts 8:1–3; 9:1) and again under Herod Antipas (Acts 12:1–5). It is no surprise that those congregations are presented as a model for Christian suffering. Although the persecution was initiated by the Jewish community in Thessalonica, the Gentiles carried it out (Acts 17:5–9).
Paul begins the litany of the sins of his own people, saying that they “killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out” (2:15a). He passes over Roman responsibility for Jesus’s death (1Tim. 6:13) as he focuses on his own people’s role (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13–15; 4:10; 5:30; 7:52), since they acted as had their ancestors in slaying the prophets (1Kings 19:10, 14; Matt. 23:31, 34, 37; Acts 7:52; Rom. 11:3). Paul understands the persecution of the Christian messengers within this same frame, since he and his associates were driven out of city after city, including Thessalonica. Paul sees the unbelieving Jews as in opposition to God and others: “They displease God and are hostile to everyone” (2:15b). Their rebellion against God (cf. Rom. 8:8) was evidenced by their opposition to the messengers of God (2:15a, 16a) and their sin (2:16b). Paul regards their opposition to the spread of the gospel as hostility to humanity “in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles” (2:16a; see Acts 13:48–51; 14:2, 19).
Paul’s final indictment is severe: “In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last” (2:16b). His claim is that his people have always resisted the divine initiative. The sentence echoes a familiar theme in the biblical and extracanonical literature concerning the sins of a people that come to their full measure before they are judged by God (Gen. 15:16; 6:11–13; Dan. 8:23; 2Maccabees 6:14), though the direct source here is Jesus’s teaching (Matt. 23:32). Paul comments that the unbelieving Jews have already begun to experience God’s wrath (cf. Rom. 1:18), which may be an allusion to the multiple sufferings his people were already enduring. These denunciations resonate with themes already found within the prophets. This text does not justify anti-Semitism. God is the one who deals with all humanity and their sins (Romans 1–3) and offers to all the hope of salvation.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
In the thanksgiving, Paul incidentally touched on their ministry in Thessalonica, but he now speaks of that ministry more directly, defending his own and his colleagues’ conduct against Jewish slanders. The matters touched on include: (1) the circ*mstances of their coming to Thessalonica and their motives in being there (2:1–6); (2) their conduct towards the Thessalonians (2:7–12); and (3) the response of the Thessalonians to their message and the ensuing hardship caused by that response (2:13–16). Because of their hostility toward the Jews and based on the assumption that they reflect the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (for the latter, cf. 2:16c especially) the last four verses have been regarded as an interpolation by some interpreters. The argument for a post-70 date for these verses is supported, some argue, by their similarity of theme and language to passages in the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew 23:29–36. But this similarity can be as easily accounted for by supposing that Paul and the synoptics drew on a common tradition. Nothing in verse 16 compels us to see behind it the disaster of A.D. 70, although it does speak of the eschatological wrath of God of which that event became a sign and symbol. But given the circ*mstances in which Paul was writing, it is no more surprising that he should write in this way (remember, Paul was human!) than that, in other circ*mstances, he should take a gentler line.
2:1 It is not apparent in the NIV, but this verse is linked to the previous section and, specifically, to verse 9. It offers a further explanation of what was said there (notice again the conjunction gar, “because”). That link is reinforced by the repetition of the unusual word eisodos, translated in verse 9 as “reception” and here as visit. What others had reported of the Thessalonians’ reception of the missionaries, the Thessalonians themselves knew to be true: their visit to them was not a failure. The Greek word is kenos (fem. kenē), “empty,” and, while the reference is to their mission in general, it should be understood to include their preaching in particular, which was not empty in terms either of conviction—they had preached “not simply with words, but also with power … with … conviction” (1:5)—or of content—they preached the gospel (v. 2)—or, indeed, of conversions. With regard to the latter especially we should notice the perfect tense of the verb gegonen. What was true at the time of their visit remains true. The Thessalonian converts’ changed lives prove the genuineness of their conversion.
2:2 Still on the theme of their preaching, Paul adds that they had dared to tell the Thessalonians his (God’s) gospel (see disc. on 1:5 for the gospel of God). This statement is introduced in the Greek by the strong adversative, “but” (alla): far from being a failure, their mission saw the very positive achievement of their “speaking (the gospel) freely” (parrēsiazomai, cf. Acts 9:27, 29; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; 26:26; Eph. 6:20; in the NT it includes the sense of speaking boldly, hence NIV “we dared to tell”). Boldness of speech characterized preachers of the early church and bore witness that God was with them. So Paul says that they had spoken with the help of their God. Considering their previous situation at Philippi, where they had suffered and been insulted (cf. Acts 16:16–40 and see Williams, Acts, ad loc.), and given the situation at Thessalonica, where they had met with strong opposition, their boldness of speech testified to human courage no less than to God’s help. On the information that we have, it seems that the opposition stemmed from the Jews (cf. 2:14–16; Acts 17:5–19). In referring to it, Paul uses the Greek word agōn which described the contests of the Greek games. This term may imply that he is not prepared to take their opposition lying down but would be an active contender in the contest for the hearts of the Thessalonians (there is a fine line between turning the other cheek and standing up for what is right; cf. Luke 6:29; Acts 23:3).
2:3 The “strong opposition,” a calling into question Paul’s motives, had been directed chiefly at Paul and had continued even in his absence, after the Jews forced him to leave Thessalonica. Hence his need to defend his motives. The missionaries’ appeal (using the noun, paraklēsis, in the same sense as the verb parakaleō in 2 Cor. 5:20; see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2) did not spring from error (planē, which can mean either “deceit,” leading others astray, or “error,” being led astray oneself). NIV is probably right to understand it as self-deception, “error,” though Bruce thinks that Paul may have intended the double meaning: “They were neither deceivers nor deceived” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:13). There is no Greek verb corresponding to the “does not spring” of NIV, but some such verb is clearly understood. It would be better put in the past tense, “did not spring,” with reference primarily to their mission.
Nor did their appeal spring from “impurity” (akatharsia, NIV impure motives, cf. 4:7). This word generally carries a moral sense, and here, it may suggest sexual immorality. There was nothing of that kind in the missionaries’ desire to make converts. Nor were they trying to trick the Thessalonians. Dolos meant originally “a bait,” and from that “a trap,” and from that, “any means of tricking another.” With this word, the preposition changes from the ek governing the previous two nouns and denoting origin (NIV … does not spring “from”) to en with the dative, meaning in this instance, “in the context of.” With their preaching still his theme, Paul denied—and we assume that this denial reflects the accusation of the Jews—that it took place in a context in which their entire ministry was given over to deception.
2:4 Again Paul employs the strong adversative alla, “but” (see disc. on 2:2). Far from having such motives, the missionaries were, in fact, men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. This description complements the reference in verse 2 to “his gospel”—the gospel is God’s in terms of its origin and his to entrust to its preachers (see disc. on 1:5). As for the preachers, the verb dokimazō applied to them was used of testing metals, and from that, of any test, and then of the approval of what had passed the test (cf. 5:21). Its perfect tense here suggests that they had long since passed the test. They were approved by God and that approval remained. Such approval made it unthinkable that their appeal to the Thessalonians stemmed from error or impure motives (2:3). Their motives and their message alike centered on God. We speak, says Paul using the present tense to express what was always their practice, not trying to please men but God (cf. 2:15; 4:1). Here again, Paul may be refuting his opponents’ accusation that his preaching was designed to please people—that he was, in this sense, ever ready to “become all things to all men.” He was, of course, always ready to be so, only not in that sense, not in the sense of compromising his preaching. Rather, he sought to accept and be accepted by all, “that by all possible means (he) might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). In his preaching, he set himself “to proclaim … the whole will of God” (Acts 20:27), whether it pleased his hearers or not (cf. Gal. 5:11). The verse ends with the verb that Paul used earlier (dokimazō, but now as a participle describing God). God who approved them, tests our hearts, he declares. This is, in effect, an invocation to God to witness to the purity of their motives (cf. 2 Cor. 4:2). The “heart” (kardia, cf. 2:17; 3:13; 2 Thess. 2:17; 3:5) is a comprehensive term for the inner self, “the seat of the rational as well as the emotional and volitional elements in human life” (Abbott-Smith). God is commonly described in Scripture as the searcher and tester of hearts (1 Chron. 28:9; 29:17; Ps. 7:9; 139:23; Prov. 17:3; Jer. 11:20; 12:3; 17:10; Acts 1:24; 15:8; Rev. 2:23).
2:5–6a Continuing to refute the charges that he sought to please men (v. 4), Paul denies he resorted to tricks of the trade such as flattery. The Greek is literally “neither did we come (ginomai, ‘become’) in a word of flattery,” where “word” refers to their preaching. This denies that flattery played any part in their preaching style. Flattery (kolakeia) implies manipulation—it is flattery designed to achieve the flatterer’s ends, a common enough feature of public speaking in both Paul’s day and our own.
The second charge that Paul disavows is that they put on a mask to cover up greed. It may have been common knowledge that Paul received gifts from Philippi. This may have led some to conclude that he had come to Thessalonica hoping for some more of the same (cf. Phil. 4:15f.). Later, this same motive is suggested again with reference to his collection for the Judean churches, and again Paul denied it (2 Cor. 9:5; 12:17f.). But in this letter, the denial may have referred to more than money. Pleonexia is greed for anything, not only for what one does not have, but for what belongs to others. It amounts to self-aggrandizement, the making of an idol of oneself (cf. Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). Paul denies that he has done this. Elsewhere he joins with others in roundly condemning pleonexia, which is so contrary to what we see in Christ (Rom. 1:29; Eph. 4:19; cf. Mark 7:22; Luke 12:15; also 1 Cor. 5:10f.; 6:10). He calls God to witness (again, see disc. on 2:4) that greed plays no part in their missionary service.
His third denial concerns a charge that they had looked for praise from men, whether from the Thessalonians (you) or anyone else (cf. 2:4). The gospel that they preached, or rather, the Christ of their gospel alone, deserved praise (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7–11; 4:7). For them, the Baptist’s words would have been a fitting motto: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (RSV John 3:30). The missionaries were concerned not with their own image but only with imaging Christ in their ministry.
2:6b–7 It is debatable whether the opening statement of this verse should be read with what follows or with the previous verse. The decision rests on what we make of its meaning. Baros, the Greek word translated burden in NIV, can also mean “dignity” or “authority,” so that Paul could have been saying, “We were not looking for praise from men (v. 6), although, as apostles of Christ, we could have expected it” (lit. “we could have been with authority”). But if we accept the NIV translation as the more likely, the statement forms a fitting introduction to what follows, where Paul reminds the Thessalonians that the missionaries were not a burden (see disc. on 2:9).
The verb “to be able” (dynamai), NIV we could have been, expresses Paul’s conviction that the apostles of Christ have the right to be maintained by their churches. But it is a right that he chooses not to exercise, perhaps for a number of reasons including the desire to set an example (cf. 1:5; 1 Cor. 9:3–18; 2 Cor. 11:7–11; 2 Thess. 3:7–9; see also Matt. 10:5–15 par.; Luke 10:1–12). Notice that he includes his colleagues, Silas and Timothy, in this reference to apostles. Evidently he is using the term in the more general sense of “messenger.” Nevertheless, they were messengers of Christ, the genitive expressing an appointment in no sense inferior to that of the Twelve (for Christ, see note on 1:1).
So they had come as apostles of Christ to the Thessalonians and had been gentle among them, as Paul puts it, like a mother caring for her little children. The weight of MSS evidence is in favor of the reading which has them coming as “babes” among the Thessalonians. The two possible readings differ only by one letter in the Greek text (the letter nu), which happens to be the last letter of the previous word. Thus, that letter was either accidentally repeated, giving nepioi, “babes,” or accidentally omitted because it had just been written, giving epioi, “gentle.” When we remember that ancient writing ran all words together, we can see how easily such an accident, either way, could have happened. The question is, What is Paul most likely to have said? “Gentle” is consistent with his metaphor of a mother caring for children, but Paul was quite capable of mixing his metaphors and, indeed, of employing such a striking mixture as this, likening himself and his colleagues first to babes and then to a mother (see S. Fowl, “A Metaphor in Distress, A Reading of nepioi in 1 Thessalonians 2:7,” NTS 36 [3, 1990], pp. 469–73). Within a few verses, he likens them also to a father (2:11), and in verse 17 to parents bereft of their children. In the end, by a happy coincidence, the meaning is much the same whether he wrote “babes” or “gentle.” The one would imply the other, in the sense that they had gone out of their way to keep their message simple, “like a nurse among her children talking baby language” (Origen and Augustine, cited without reference by Morris). Trophos, in this verse, is “nurse” rather than “mother,” but the reflexive pronoun suggests that the image is of a nurse caring not for someone else’s children, but for her own. In short, the metaphor is of a nursing mother—as tender an image as one could find to represent the pastor and his/her people (cf. Gal. 4:19; also Num. 11:12; see W. A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986], pp. 125–30). The verb, thalpō, means strictly, “to warm,” but carries its secondary sense, “to care for,” “to cherish” (cf. Eph. 5:29).
2:8 We loved you so much, Paul adds, and the verse ends as it begins on this note, that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well. It is conjectured that the verb homeiromai, found only here in the NT, is “a term of endearment borrowed from the language of the nursery” (Wohlenberg, cited by Milligan) and that Paul is, therefore, sustaining the metaphor of the previous verse. In any case, the point of that verse is reinforced with this further assertion of the missionaries’ affection for the Thessalonians, such that they were pleased “to spend and be spent” in their interest (2 Cor. 12:15). The divine origin of the gospel is again indicated by the subjective genitive, “of God” (see disc. on 1:5). To preach such a gospel is a demanding task, but nowhere nearly as demanding as sharing one’s life with those to whom it is preached. But can the preacher do any less? “No servant is greater than his master,” said Jesus, “nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16). But our Master, Jesus, “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). As self-sacrifice lay at the heart of his ministry, so it does with all Christian ministry, whether it be preaching or any other.
2:9 This was certainly the character of the service of Paul, Silas, and Timothy in Thessalonica, as Paul reminds his readers—or perhaps, he simply observes that they remembered (taking the verb, with NIV, to be indicative rather than imperative). But notice, he again calls them brothers (see disc. on 1:4), suggesting thereby that the burden of this service was lightened by love. He speaks of their toil and hardship. These words (kopos, see disc. on 1:3, and mochthos) mean much the same. Each speaks of hard work, and in combination, they underline the hardship that the missionaries endured. This is further emphasized by the statement, we worked night and day, whose word order reflects the fact that in the ancient world the working day started early, while it was still night (cf. Acts 20:31; 2 Thess. 3:8; also 1 Thess. 3:10). This was done, explains Paul, that we might not be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. These words may give some encouragement to those latter day missionaries who find that the only way into some communities is by using their technical skills. The verb “to be a burden” (epibareō, cf. 2 Thess. 3:8) derives from the same root as the noun in verse 7 and makes the same point as in that verse. The verb, “to preach” (kēryssō), commonly concerns the proclamation of the gospel. It denoted the work of a herald (kēryx; cf. 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11), who was not to entertain or to win approval, but to faithfully transmit the message that was entrusted to him, in this case, that message is “the gospel of God” (see disc. on 1:5).
2:10 Again Paul calls on the Thessalonians (you, with some emphasis in the Greek) and on God to witness to the truth of what he says about the missionaries’ conduct. The confidence with which he does this is impressive (see the comment on 1:6). He uses three adverbs, holy, righteous and blameless. On the basis of their meaning in classical Greek, the first two are thought by some to refer to their Godward and their manward conduct respectively, and the third to their faultless conduct in both respects. It is unlikely, however, that these distinctions held good by the time that Paul wrote. The dative case that follows must also be taken into account. NIV reads among you, but it may be better to take the dative as meaning “towards you,” in which case the Thessalonians are exclusively in view, and the three adverbs are virtually synonymous. In short, the missionaries’ conduct towards them was irreproachable. Proper conduct is an essential factor in any missionary enterprise, whether in Paul’s world or in today’s Western society which has equally lost sight of its ethical boundaries. As for their Thessalonian converts, Paul describes them as you who believed, a common description of Christians in the NT, not surprisingly, for faith (in Christ) is central to Christianity. It puts us into the way of salvation and is the key to our continuing relationship with God. The latter is especially in view here since Paul uses the present participle.
2:11–12 Yet again he calls on the Thessalonians to witness to the truth of what he says (cf. vv. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10). You know, he says, and the Greek text joins this to verse 10 with the conjunction kathaper, “just as.” That is, what the Thessalonians knew of the missionaries’ conduct corresponded exactly with Paul’s statement that they had been “holy, righteous, and blameless.” You know that we dealt with each of you. NIV adds we dealt to supply the missing verb in the Greek—some such verb, of course, is understood. Its direct object, literally, each of you (cf. 2 Thess. 1:3), conveys emphasis in the Greek, and, being in the singular, it draws attention to the fact that they were concerned not merely with numbers (“how many were at the service today?”), but with their converts as individuals (cf. Col. 1:28 with its repeated “everyone”—again, the singular). These they care for as tenderly as a mother nurses her child (see disc. on 2:7) and as a father deals with (again understood in the Greek) his own children. Being like a father to the Thessalonians meant encouraging them (the Gk. verb, parakaleō, has a range of meanings, see disc. on 3:2, but most often in the NT it has the meaning given here, especially when coupled with comforting, paramytheomai, cf. 5:14). Being like a father also meant urging (martyromai) them to live lives worthy of God. The verb has a more authoritative nuance than the others. It had by this time lost its original sense of invoking witnesses (martyrēs), but it retained something of the sense of witnessing, “to solemnly affirm” and so “to make an urgent appeal.” The appeal, in this case, was literally “to walk worthily of God.” The Greek construction, eis to with the infinitive (“to walk”) expresses the goal to which the missionaries urged their converts. There is no higher purpose in life than this (for the same construction expressing purpose cf. 3:2, 10, 13; 4:9; 2 Thess. 2:2; and for the similar pros to with the infinitive, v. 9; see also disc. on v. 16).
The figure of walking (peripateō) with reference to conduct is a common one in the NT and especially in Paul (cf. 4:1, 12; 2 Thess. 3:6, 11; cf. also the use of “way” for manner of life, Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22; 1 Cor. 4:17). “Walking” can indicate good or bad conduct (cf. 2 Cor. 4:2; 10:2). Here, of course, it is good and, indeed, with the infinitive in the present tense, it indicates persistence in doing good. Specifically, Paul wanted their lives to persistently reflect the life of God—striving to be perfect because God is perfect (Matt. 5:48), to be loving because God is love (John 13:34; 1 John 4:16). This is “to walk worthily” of God and only such a life befits the people of God’s kingdom.
Perhaps Paul arrived at his description of God as the one who calls you into his kingdom and glory via this train of thought. A variant reading, with the aorist participle, would hark back to God’s “call” in Christ—“come to me” (Matt. 11:28 etc.)—or to that moment when the believer first responded to that call. But NIV accepts the better reading of the present participle, which reminds us that God goes on calling to the weary and the burdened. See also 5:24 where the present participle appears again: “the one who calls you is faithful” (cf. Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 1:9). It can still be said that, while this age continues, “now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). The two concepts of kingdom and of glory are drawn together in the phrase before us by the single preposition and article to give the sense, “God’s glorious kingdom.” This denotes that aspect of his kingdom that is yet to be revealed, when the restoration of God’s rule to his rebellious creation will be completed. It began with Christ’s coming and will be completed at his return (see note) in glory (see, e.g., Matt. 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31). Paul thereby discloses one of the major themes of these letters (cf. 2 Thess. 1:5). In 2 Thessalonians 2:14 the same thought of future glory is found, but what is here spoken of as God’s is there ascribed to Jesus—“the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For Paul, the two are One (see disc. on 3:11 and 2 Thess. 2:16).
2:13 Paul returns to his theme of thanksgiving (see disc. on 1:2–10). Using language similar to that in chapter 1, he tells his readers, we also thank God continually (cf. 1:2; 5:17). Prefaced in the Greek by the phrase, “because of this” (dia touto), this statement looks ahead to the explanatory clause, “because, when you received.” The redundant phrase is wisely omitted by NIV. Whether “also” should be read with “thank” or with the pronoun “we” remains unclear. The Greek word order favors the latter. This reading gives the impression that Paul was responding to secondhand news or perhaps to an earlier letter that reported that the Thessalonians were giving thanks to God. Paul, Silas, and Timothy now echo this thanks to God. In chapter 1, the thanksgiving was for the coming of the gospel to their city; here it is for the Thessalonians’ reception of it as the word of God. He speaks of this twice in the one verse: you received the word of God … you accepted it. Of the two different verbs, the first, paralambanō, apparently functioned almost as a technical term for the reception of the Christian faith (cf. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6 and its use with the correlative verb, paradidomi, “to hand down,” in 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; see note on 2:13); the second, dechomai adds the thought that they had welcomed what they had received (cf. 1:6; 2 Thess. 2:10).
Emphasis is laid on the fact that what they received was the word of God. That phrase is repeated (at least, as NIV understands it; see note on 2:13) and Paul further underscores his point by stating that it was not the word of men (cf. Gal. 1:11f.) but was actually “just as” (kathōs) he had described it. Paul could not have expressed himself much more strongly than this. The strength of his conviction about the gospel explains his commitment to preaching it. On one occasion, Luke graphically describes Paul as being “seized by the word” (Acts 18:5), as though it had overpowered him, and he was no longer master of when he would preach but the servant of a gospel that would be preached “in season and out” (2 Tim. 4:2). But there had to be a preacher, and so he adds that it was the word of God which you heard from us. It was also the word which is at work in you who believe. Here another link is forged with the earlier thanksgiving, which spoke of the gospel coming to the Thessalonians with power (1:5). The changing lives of those who received it—the present tense of the verb energeō, “to be at work,” implies that the work is still in process—verifies that the gospel is the word of God. The description of its recipients as those who believe reminds us once again that faith is the key that opens the door (from the inside) to God’s word (cf. Acts 14:27; Rev. 3:20) and so puts us in the path of God’s salvation.
2:14 In 1:6 Paul remarks that the Thessalonians were their imitators, and imitators therefore of the Lord in terms of conduct. But the likeness to their mentors did not end there. They also suffered (as of necessity since they were Christians; the promise of Jesus to his followers is not popularity but persecution; see disc. on 3:3). Just like (kathōs) God’s churches in Judea, said Paul, you suffered from your own countrymen. The churches in question comprised the original church in Jerusalem, which itself may have been made up of a number of different groups (see Acts 6:1), and those others which subsequently sprang up following the scattering of its members (like seed) through persecution (see Acts 8:1, 4; 11:19). In referring to the Judean churches, Paul uses the participle of the verb “to be”—“the churches being in, …” which appears to have been a quasi-technical term for the church in a particular place, as we would say, “the local church” (Acts 11:22; 13:1). But alongside this is another phrase that points to what all (true) churches have in common, and this constitutes them as part of the one church: they are in Christ Jesus (cf. Acts 9:31 where the daughter churches of Jerusalem are spoken of collectively as “the church [singular] throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria”; with the phrase, “in Christ Jesus,” cf. “in the Lord,” 3:8 and for Christ, see note on 1:1). Paul could never forget his own part in persecuting God’s churches, and this no doubt came to mind now as he wrote; but whether he was referring specifically to that persecution or to a later one (e.g., Acts 12:1) we cannot tell (see note on 2:14).
On the one hand, the point of comparison between the church in Thessalonica and God’s churches in Judea may extend beyond their suffering to its cause: the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus (for Lord, see note on 1:1). From Luke’s brief account of the mission in Thessalonica, it was evidently the Jews who instigated the riot that forced Paul, Silas, and Timothy to leave. On the other hand, Paul’s use here of the word symphyletēs, your own countrymen, may argue against blaming the Jews for the Thessalonians’ present troubles. If the Thessalonian church was now a predominantly Gentile church, the argument is even stronger, assuming, of course, that the Jews of Thessalonica were deemed by Paul to be foreigners. Others may have thought of them as such, but would Paul have done so? The condemnation of the Jews in verses 15 and 16 is general, extending beyond their activities in Judea to Paul’s experience of their resistance to the gospel in the course of his missionary journeys, and could be understood to include Thessalonica. Even so, such a passage as this must always be set over against a passage like Romans 9–11, where we see the apostle anguishing for his fellow Jews, wishing that he himself could be “cursed and cut off from Christ” for their sake (Rom. 9:3). A frank recognition of guilt does not preclude love for the guilty—a point that ought not to be lost on us (cf. Rom. 5:8).
2:15–16 These verses contain a fivefold condemnation of the Jews ranging from what they did to Jesus, to what they continued to do to prevent his followers from preaching the gospel. (1) It was they who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets. Only here, in all his writings, does Paul explicitly lay this charge against his fellow Jews (cf. 1 Cor. 2:8; Col. 2:15). Moreover, the way he does it magnifies the enormity of what they had done. His unusual word order draws attention to the fact that the Jesus whom they killed was the Lord. The title stands at the front of the sentence—“the Lord they killed, even Jesus”—with all the implications of glory that that title could bear (cf. Acts 2:32–36 and see note on 1:1).
What they did to Jesus was the climax of a history in which they had done the same thing to the prophets “who predicted the coming of the Righteous One” (Acts 7:52; cf. Matt. 23:37; Luke 11:47–51; 13:33f.; Mart. Isa. 5:1–14; Tertullian, Scorpiace 8; Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 2.37). (2) Now they were even persecuting Jesus’ followers: (and also drove us out). The reference may be a general one, but it is more likely a specific allusion to what happened in Macedonia (Acts 17:1–14; cf. 13:50; 14:5, 19; 17:13; 18:6; 19:9).
(3) They displease God is a charge that Paul also leveled against Gentiles who were “controlled by [their] sinful nature” and, therefore, could not “please God” (Rom. 8:8; cf. 1 Thess. 4:1). Indeed, the charge is leveled not against the Jews as Jews, but against them as those who (like many Gentiles) rejected Christ. In this connection, Paul adds (4) that they are hostile to all men. This charge echoes what was widely said of the Jews at that time, as it was soon to be said of Christians (see Tacitus, History 5.5.2; Josephus, Against Apion 2.121, and, with reference to Christians, Tacitus, Annals 15.44.5). It must be asked whether Paul would have joined in condemning his fellow Jews in those terms. Not, perhaps, on the same grounds. But on the grounds of their rejection of Christ out of their resistance to the gospel, he may well have used this language against them. The gospel was for the general good, so that any hindrance of it was an act of hostility to all men. So NIV interprets this charge, linking it to what follows: (5) they keep us from speaking to the Gentiles. The connection is not as explicit in the Greek as in our version, but it is implied in the train of thought by the present participle, which conveys the persistent attitude of the Jews: “They keep on (trying) to keep us from speaking” (see the passages in Acts listed above which bear this out). The speaking was to the end that they (the Gentiles) may be saved. Salvation is conceived of here in the broadest sense and includes the whole spectrum of God’s grace. By resisting that grace and hindering it in others, the Jews, said Paul, always heap up their sins to the limit. This comment gathers up all the charges listed above.
The verb, anaplēroō perhaps suggests an image of a cup—to “fill up” might be better than “to heap up.” The prefix ana-perhaps adds the thought that they had filled the cup of their sins to the full (cf. Matt. 23:32). The verb, an infinitive in a prepositional phrase with eis, expresses the purpose of those concerned (see disc. on 2:12), but in this instance, it must be understood as expressing the result. This leads to Paul’s final declaration: The wrath of God has come upon them at last (see disc. on 1:10). The use and form of the verb phthanō raises two questions: First, what does the verb itself mean? Second, what is the significance of the tense? Strictly speaking, it means “to come before,” “to anticipate,” and it bears this sense in 4:15. But generally, by the time that Paul wrote, it meant simply “to come.” Its aorist tense (in the indicative mood) generally connotes past time, but in a prophetic context, it may depict something future but so certain that it can be spoken of as if past. The question is, Was Paul saying that God’s wrath had come—that it had already manifested itself, in the strict sense of the verb, in anticipation of the eschatological judgment? Or was he speaking prophetically of the wrath that was yet to be revealed from heaven (Rom. 1:18)? And if the former, what had happened? The classic case (as we suppose) of a historical anticipation of the judgment is the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (see Mark 13), and assuming that this is in view here, some have held these verses to be a later interpolation (1 Thessalonians was written about A.D. 51; see Introduction). But there is nothing that compels us to identify this passage and, in particular, the second half of verse 16 with that disaster. An alternative suggestion (always assuming that the reference is to something past and not future) contends that Paul had in mind the series of disasters in A.D. 49 involving Jews, including a massacre in the temple (Josephus, War 2.224–227; Ant. 20.105–112) and their expulsion from Rome (Suetonuis, Claudius 25.4; cf. Acts 18:2 and see further, Williams, Acts, pp. 319f.). But in the context of this letter and in the light of 1:10 especially, it may be best to understand the reference as eschatological—the wrath is yet to come upon them. In this case the aorist (past) tense would be functioning in the prophetic manner to express what is future. The marginal reading of the NIV, “fully,” is better than at last for eis telos, since the thought is that the Jews, in common with all who reject Christ, will in that day drink to the dregs the cup of God’s wrath that is filled by their sins.
Additional Notes
2:2 Insulted in Philippi: The insult lay not simply in their being mistreated as Roman citizens, but in the treatment itself. They were publicly stripped, evidently at the hands of the magistrates themselves (not apparent in NIV), and beaten, without any inquiry into the charges (Acts 16:22–24; see Williams, Acts, p. 288).
2:3 Impure motives: Schmithals, p. 145, sees a reference here to the collection for the relief of the Christian poor in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:25–31; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9), suggesting that Paul had suddenly demanded a contribution from the Thessalonians after having earlier refused to live at their expense. It is highly unlikely, however, that he was already working on the collection at this time. The desperate plight of the Judean Christians may have been borne in upon him only on his fleeting visit to the city (as we suppose) in Acts 18:22, so that it was not until his years in Ephesus (Acts 19) that he did anything to organize for their relief. The epistles that stem from this period reflect this. See Williams, Acts, pp. 323, 336.
2:6 Apostles of Christ: Early use of the term “apostle” appears to be restricted to the Twelve (Acts 1:2, 6, 12; 2:43; 4:35, 37; 5:2, 12, 18; 8:1) or, at least, this is how Luke generally uses the term. Only twice, in Acts 14:4, 14, does he extend the category to include Paul and Barnabas. Paul, though, readily applied the title to a wider group, which included James, the Lord’s brother (1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19), and Andronicus and Junia (not Junias as NIV, Rom. 16:7). It is a question, however, whether he would have applied it so widely as to include Timothy, his own “true son in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2). If 1 Corinthians 9:1 can be taken as a statement of apostolic criteria, namely, that he or she had “seen Jesus our Lord” (risen) (cf. Acts 1:21), this would rule out Timothy; and we must understand apostles here (supposing that Timothy is included in the reference) in the more general sense of messengers (cf. John 13:16; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25).
2:9 We worked night and day: Paul appears committed to the principle of self-support (cf. 1 Cor. 9:6), which, in his case, meant making tents or, more generally, working in leather (see R. F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tent Making and Apostleship [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], p. 21). Rabbis were expected to learn and practice a trade (cf. Pirqe ’Abot 2.2), and Paul must have been glad of this in later life as he worked to support his ministry (cf. Acts 20:34; 1 Cor. 4:12; 9:3–19; 2 Cor. 11:7ff.; 2 Thess. 3:8). During his time at Thessalonica, more than once he received gifts from the church in Philippi to support his ministry (cf. Phil. 4:15f.). While the Thessalonians may have known this (see disc. on 2:5f.), rather than embarrass them, Paul may have chosen to not mention that outside help, since he had not accepted the support of the Thessalonians. In any case, the gifts from Philippi were probably not sufficient for keeping body and soul together and, therefore, they had no bearing on his point.
2:12 His kingdom and glory: For a proper understanding of the term “the kingdom of God,” note that both the Greek and the Hebrew or Aramaic words thus translated signify kingship rather than kingdom; rule rather than realm. Essentially, therefore, the kingdom of God “is not a community of Christians nor an inner life of the soul, nor yet an earthly paradise which mankind is bringing into being and which is in the process of development” (G. Lundstrom, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus [Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963], p. 232), though it might embrace all these notions. Rather, it is God acting in his kingly power, expressing sovereignty and, in particular, asserting his rule both for the overthrow of Satan (see note on 2:18) and for the restoration of humanity to a relationship with himself. But this was conceived of in various ways: sometimes in terms of God’s eternal sovereignty and sometimes in terms of our present experience of him, but chiefly in terms of the kingdom’s future manifestation. Its onset would be marked by the “day of the Lord” when God and/or his Messiah would appear (see note on 1:1), the dead would be raised, God would vindicate the righteous and judge the unrighteous (Joel 2:31; Amos 5:18–20; Mal. 4:5), and the new age would be ushered in. Then all would know God, from the least to the greatest, and he would forgive them (Jer. 31:34) and pour out his Spirit upon them (Joel 2:28).
For Jesus’ contemporaries as for all generations before them, the kingdom conceived of in these terms was no more than a distant hope. With what astonishment, therefore, must they have heard Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom’s arrival (see, e.g., Mark 1:22, 27). “The time has come,” he said (i.e., the anticipated time of its manifestation), “the kingdom of God” has arrived (Mark 1:15; cf., e.g., Luke 17:21). But, if Jesus was right (and the evidence of his life, his miracles, his resurrection, and the Pentecostal outpouring assure us that he was), then the kingdom clearly had not come in the manner expected. For the time being, it remained a personal and partial (though real) experience for those who submitted to God’s rule in Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12). Only when Jesus returns will the kingdom be fully established and God’s rule become all in all (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24f.). Thus the day of the Lord that arrived with the coming of Jesus has been drawn out until his return. Much of the language of the OT describing the day of the Lord is applied by the NT to Jesus and to the day of his return—he is viewed as the Lord whose day it was. Hence, in addition to being called the day of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10), it is called “the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:10; 2:16), “the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6), “the day of the Lord Jesus” (2 Cor. 1:14), “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8), and sometimes simply as “the day” (Rom. 13:12; 1 Cor. 3:13; 1 Thess. 5:4; Heb. 10:25) or “that day” (2 Thess. 1:10 in Greek; not apparent in NIV). See further Williams, Promise, esp. pp. 19–35.
2:13 When you received the word of God: As discussed above, the verb paralambanō, “to receive,” and its correlative, paradidomi, “to hand down,” were apparently almost technical terms for the reception and transmission of the Christian faith, “the tradition” (paradosis, see disc. on 2 Thess. 2:15). Broadly speaking, this tradition had three components: (1) a summary of the gospel story, (2) a rehearsal of the deeds and words of Jesus, and (3) an outline of how his followers should behave. The latter was apparently transmitted in an ordered form under subject headings such as “Put off (old vices),” “Put on (new virtues),” “Be subject (to those in authority and to one another),” “Watch and pray” (cf. Col. 3:5–4:6 for such a catechesis, and Rom. 6:17 for reference to the catechesis which was handed down [paradidomi] to the Roman Christians; both Jesus himself [Col. 2:6f.] and the apostles [Phil. 4:9; 2 Thess. 3:6–10] were “received” [paralambanō] as exemplars of this tradition).
The word of God which you heard from us (logon akoēs par’ hēmōn tou theou): NIV takes logon closely with tou theou, “the word of God,” and akoēs with par’ hēmōn, “which you heard from us.” This can be read differently, though to the same effect, by staying closer to the word order of the Greek: “you received the word of hearing (i.e., the word which you heard) from us, (but it was) God’s (word).” Tou theou may be placed at the end for emphasis and intended, thereby, to stand in contrast to par’ hēmōn, “from us”—“you heard us speaking, but in reality it was God’s word that you heard, not a piece of interesting human wisdom, but the very word of God.” That is the important thing. The gospel is God’s word, not a human invention. For logon akoēs, cf. Heb. 4:2; see also Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:2, 5.
2:14 The … things those (Judean) churches suffered from the Jews: We have already considered (see disc. on 1:6) the difficulty of identifying precisely what things … suffered Paul had in mind. Perhaps it was the persecution in which he himself had played a part (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1f.). On those occasions when he plainly referred to this persecution, however, he spoke explicitly of his own role. There is no hint of that here (cf. Gal. 1:22f.; 1 Tim. 1:12–14). That the persecution of Acts 12:1 was seemingly aimed chiefly at the apostles and not at the rank-and-file lends further weight against the view that it was the persecution in which Paul played a role. Bruce suggests that we should think here of a more recent persecution associated with the increase of Zealot activities in Judea around the time of Ventidius Cumanus’ arrival as procurator in A.D. 48 (cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.105–135. See also R. Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” NTS 17 [1970–71], pp. 198–212).
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by David J. Williams, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.
Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:15). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.
On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.
Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.
All the Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.
During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).
The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (6:48–49).
In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).
Passion week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
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.
The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.”
In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:68; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).
The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).
Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).
Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.
Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).
However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.
Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.
The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).
In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).
The English word “gospel” translates the Greek word euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being used seventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,” angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary use in the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather a declaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empire with reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, who was thought of as a savior with divine status. These events included declarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and his accession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be traced to the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This good news, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’s promises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.
Deceitful cunning, usually employed in taking advantage of others through scheming and underhanded methods (e.g., Exod. 21:14; Pss. 32:2; 34:13; 55:21; 2Cor. 12:16 KJV; 2Macc. 12:24; 1Pet. 2:1 NRSV). Although Nathaniel is not initially impressed with Jesus’ messianic credentials, Jesus nevertheless praises him for his straightforwardness: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile” (John 1:47 KJV [NIV, NRSV: “no deceit”]). The reference to an Israelite may be a pun on the meaning of Jacob’s name, which means “deceiver” (see Gen. 25:26; 27:3536; cf. Gen. 28:12 with John 1:51). Judas Iscariot is an unfortunate contrast (John 12:6). God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and therefore his word is without guile or “pure” (cf. 1Pet. 2:1–2; 3:10).
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 kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world.
A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan.3).
God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:1420). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).
(1)The tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, regions northeast of Palestine, at the time when John the Baptist’s public ministry began (Luke 3:1). (2)One of Jesus’ twelve apostles (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; John 1:43). Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from Bethsaida (John 1:44). It was Philip who introduced Nathanael to Jesus (John 1:4548). John’s Gospel mentions Philip three times subsequent to chapter 1 (6:5–7; 12:20–22; 14:6–10), in the last instance recording Philip’s shortsighted request for Jesus to show the Father to the apostles. (3)One of seven men selected by the Jerusalem church to care for the distribution of food to its widows (Acts 6:1–6). This man, also known as Philip the evangelist (21:8), shared the message of Jesus Christ in a city of Samaria, performing great miracles (8:5–13). Philip later explained the good news of Jesus to an Ethiopian eunuch whom he encountered (8:26–38). After Philip baptized the eunuch, “the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away” (8:39). Philip then preached in several towns, finally arriving at Caesarea, where he settled (8:40). Years later, Paul stayed in Caesarea with Philip and his four prophesying daughters (21:8–9).
A city in northeastern Macedonia, approximately ten miles from the Aegean coast. The city had its share of trade, being on the Via Egnatia, the main east-west route from the Adriatic through Thrace. The city lay on the plain between the mountains in the north and the sea to the south.
Luke identifies Philippi as the chief city of its division in Macedonia and as a Roman colony (Acts 16:12). Paul arrived in Philippi around AD 5052 after receiving a divine injunction to spread the gospel there (16:9–10). There was a small Jewish population, but not enough for a synagogue (16:13), so the Jewish women of the city would go to a place beside the river to worship Yahweh. Paul brought the gospel to them there, and the first convert was a God-fearing woman, Lydia (16:14). The church established there was predominantly Gentile.
Paul came through the city again on his third missionary journey (Acts 20:6). As far as we know, this was the last time he saw the church, though he wrote back with thanks and instruction in his letter to the Philippian church.
A prophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts his message to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in the OT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.” Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he cried out, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template for understanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tell Aaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet’” (Exod. 7:1).
In the NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist could point to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted a famine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:1011).
Paul lists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11), including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OT prophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not to overdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20). Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks of prophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing an authoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach the gospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between the ministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be the normative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people to turn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of his return and the final judgment.
Thus, all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they never participate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. The greatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus. John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure, but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection can proclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministry of any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
Five prophetesses are mentioned in the OT: Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4–5), Huldah (2Kings 22:14–20; 2Chron. 34:22–28), Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3), and Noadiah (Neh. 6:14).
Similarly in the NT, Peter recognizes God’s promise through Joel being fulfilled in the gift of prophetic speech to women as well as men at Pentecost (Acts 2:18); and Paul, acknowledging that women prophesy publicly in the congregation, is concerned only with the manner of their doing so (1Cor. 11:5). The prophetess Anna proclaims the baby Jesus as the Messiah (Luke 2:36–38), Luke reports that the four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist also prophesy (Acts 21:8–9). The only false prophetess in the NT is the apocalyptic figure of Jezebel in Rev. 2:20.
The English term “witness” occurs in both Testaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One common meaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to the legitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:1516, 18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occurs primarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especially God—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensic dimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g., Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).
Central to the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. This was a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legal proceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimony against anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was so significant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).
Truth-telling was not something that the people of Israel were called to merely among themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to the nations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence and holiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod. 19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israel failed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind” (Isa. 42:19).
The NT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’s witnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testify concerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context that Jesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designated as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then called to bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
“Witness” is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one has seen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legal testimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replace Judas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close of the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern for witnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundred others, and himself as among those who have witnessed the resurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).
Throughout Revelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearing witness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of this witness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred, and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev. 2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, who explicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and are eventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they have finished “their testimony” (11:7).
It is this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads to the second-century employment of “martyr” as a designation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point of death.
“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).
The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).
Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.
On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:56). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).
In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.
Despite tendencies to downplay the reality of God’s anger (God is classically described as “without passions”), if we are to do justice to both Testaments, we must allow the language of Scripture to stand, where God often is said to be angry with individuals or nations, including Israel. Although God is changeless (Mal. 3:6), he interacts in a personal way with a time-bound world. The Bible writers intend us to understand that there is something in God’s anger to which human anger is analogous, though God’s anger is not identical to ours (Hos. 11:9). God’s anger is not an automatic response; he can restrain it (Ps. 78:38). God is said to be characteristically slow to become angry; that is, his anger is a deliberate response (Exod. 34:6, a text with numerous echoes) and may also be short-lived (Ps. 30:5; Mic. 7:18).
God’s anger against Israel in the wilderness is noteworthy (Heb. 3:10, 17). The apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32:1012), the complaining (Num. 11:1, 33), and the failure to enter the promised land following the report of the spies (Num. 32:10–11) all provoke God to anger. Failure to heed God’s word (Zech. 7:12) or that of his prophets (2Chron. 36:16), neglect of his worship (2Chron. 29:6–8), and intermarriage with idolaters (Ezra 9:14) are behaviors that incur the wrath of God.
God’s anger is directed against individuals, particularly for failures of leadership, as with Moses (Exod. 4:14; Deut. 1:37) and Solomon (1Kings 11:9–11). God’s anger often is directed against the Israelite and Judean kings, not just those who committed idolatry (2Chron. 25:15), but even those who are faithful in most respects, for their failure to remove the idolatrous high places (2Kings 23:19).
Picking up on the warning that God’s anger will be directed against those who do not pay homage to God’s appointed king (Ps. 2:5, 12), Jesus declares that disobedience to God’s Son brings upon one the wrath of God (John 3:36), which evidently is not incompatible with his love for the world (3:16). According to Rom. 4:15, God’s wrath is a consequence of the law; that is, the law, giving concrete expression to the character of God, brings culpability for transgression. God’s wrath is revealed against all forms of ungodliness and its tendency to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18). Those who demonstrate their disobedience to God or his truth will be subjected to his anger (Rom. 2:8; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6).
The judgment that follows as a consequence of God’s anger being aroused takes the form of the withholding of God’s covenant favor (Ps. 95:11; Isa. 54:8) or the implementation of his covenant curses (Deut. 29:27), specifically through drought (Deut. 11:17), plague (Ps. 78:50), the sword (Ps. 78:62), and deliverance into the hands of enemies (2Kings 13:3), leading to exile (2Chron. 6:36). God’s anger can be depicted in various forms of cosmic upheaval or the undoing of creation (2Sam. 22:8–16; Ps. 18:7; Jer. 4:26). God’s anger is beyond human ability to endure (Ps. 76:7), such that hiding in Sheol is considered preferable (Job 14:13).
God’s wrath becomes particularly associated with a coming day of wrath at the end of the age, when God’s justice will be powerfully displayed (Dan. 8:19; Zeph. 2:3; Luke 21:23; Rom. 2:5; Rev. 6:17).
The NT brings to fulfillment these forms of mediation in presenting the ultimate remedy for God’s wrath in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:9; 1Thess. 1:10; 5:9). The use of “propitiation” language (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1John 2:2), though its significance is disputed, is classically understood in terms of the need for God’s wrath to be satisfied. In that case, it is specifically the cross of Christ that ultimately deals with God’s righteous anger against sinners.
Direct Matches
A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples(Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) whor*ceived Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he grantedauthority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced JudasIscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the earlychurch in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43;2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as theytestified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broaderusage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection(1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabasand Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) andAndronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of hiscalling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor.1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1;Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1;2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).
An expression for a range of responses to a crisis ordifficulty, from courage (Acts 4:29, 31; 2 Cor. 3:12; Eph. 3:12;Phil. 1:20; 1 Thess. 2:2) to shameless persistence (Luke 11:8).After Paul and Silas had been jailed in Philippi, they were willingto endure more persecution to preach to the Thessalonians (Acts16:16–24; 1 Thess. 2:2). To the Philippians, the apostlereflects on his bold preaching (Phil. 1:20). The Christians’relationship with Christ also gives them boldness to enter into God’spresence (Eph. 3:12; Heb. 4:16). The agent of Christian boldness isthe Holy Spirit (Acts 4:31).
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).
Although the word “courage” does not occur withgreat frequency in the Bible, there are numerous examples of thosewho display its qualities (e.g., Heb. 11). Courage is an importanttheme in the conquest of the land of Canaan (Deut. 3:28; 31:6–8,23; Josh. 1:6–9; 10:25). The psalmist is filled with couragebecause of God’s protection (Ps. 27:1). Paul takes courage inGod to share the gospel with the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:2).God’s people take courage because of God’s presence(1 Chron. 22:13; 2 Chron. 32:7; Hag. 2:4; 1 Cor.16:13; 2 Cor. 5:6–8; Heb. 13:6). The source of courage,therefore, comes not from one’s own character but rather fromthe character of God. Courage is inspired by God, generated by God,expressed in service to God, and manifests itself in endurance andintegrity.
The empowering of another in belief or course of action(1Thess. 2:3; 1Tim. 4:13; Heb. 12:5). The conceptoverlaps semantically with encouragement, the lifting of another’sspirit (Acts 9:31; Phil. 2:1; 2Cor. 1:4–7) and appeal(2Cor. 8:4). Jews congregated regularly in synagogues to hear areading from the Law and the Prophets, which then was applied totheir immediate lives by a competent teacher as “a word ofexhortation” or sermon (Acts 13:15; see Luke 4:16–21).Preaching weekly from an authoritative text for community formationappears to be a uniquely Jewish phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world.This practice continues in the church. The author of Hebrewsdescribes his text as a “word of exhortation” (13:22).The Holy Spirit illumined the fuller sense of Scripture as a witnessto Jesus Christ and also communicated directly to believers throughprophetic utterances (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 14:3).
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.
Speech (2Kings 19:16; Isa. 37:17) or gesture (2Sam.10:4) that shames, demeans, disrespects, abuses, offends, or slightssomeone. Insults in the biblical world were also part of propagandaand warfare; for example, Nabal hurled insults at David (1Sam.25:14; cf. Lam. 3:61–63). Divine wrath is implored forvengeance against those who insult God (2Kings 19:22–23;Neh. 4:4; Ezek. 21:28; Zeph. 2:8), while responding in kind seems tobe acceptable (Isa. 37:23), since, as the psalmist bemoans, insultsdirected at God include the psalmist too (Ps. 69:9). Romans 15:3 putsthese sentiments in the mouth of Christ (cf. Ps. 22:7).
Jeremiahbewails insults directed at him for simply being a prophet (Jer.20:8) and laments the desecration of the temple as an insult to Godand his people (51:51). While prudence ignores insults and showsself-control (Prov. 12:16), correcting mockers invites insult (9:7;22:10).
Jesus’followers are to anticipate insults (Heb. 10:33) and even count themas blessings (Matt. 5:11; Luke 6:22) because they are partaking ofwhat Jesus himself went through (Matt. 27:39; 27:44; Mark 15:29;15:32; Luke 18:32; 23:39; 1Pet. 4:14). But 1Pet. 2:23;3:9 discourage responding in kind when insulted. Paul, as part of hissuffering (1Thess. 2:2), even delighted in insults for Christ’ssake (2Cor. 12:10). Discriminating against the poor is aninsult to them (James 2:6), while insulting the Spirit of graceresults in divine judgment (Heb. 10:29).
The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While thetheme is most fully developed in the NT, its originis the OT,where the emphasis falls on God’s king-ship. God is king ofIsrael (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of allthe earth (2Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1–4; Isa. 6:5;Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reignas king are references to a day when God will become king over hispeople (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). Thisemphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism andtakes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and itsanticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, whichabandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the agewill the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom isfurther developed throughout the NT.
TheSynoptic Gospels
Inthe Synoptic Gospels the phrase “the kingdom of God”occurs over one hundred times in Mark, Luke, and Matthew (where“kingdom of heaven” is a synonym for “kingdom ofGod”). Three views have been defended regarding whether and towhat extent the kingdom of God was present in Jesus’ ministry.In other words, how are we to interpret the phrase “kingdom ofGod” in the Synoptics? The three views are consistenteschatology, realized eschatology, and inaugurated eschatology.
Consistenteschatology.Albert Schweitzer, a biblical scholar from the late nineteenthcentury, first popularized consistent eschatology. Here, “consistent”means consistent with the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day,which interpreted the kingdom of God as something coming in thefuture. Judaism at the time of Christ divided history into twoperiods: this age of sin, when sin rules, and the age to come, whenthe Messiah is expected to bring the kingdom of God to earth.Schweitzer concluded that an apocalyptic understanding of the kingdomwas foundational not only for Christ’s teaching, but also tounderstanding his life. Thus, Schweitzer maintained that Jesusbelieved that it was his vocation to become the coming Son of Man.Initially, Jesus revealed this messianic secret only to Peter, James,and John. Later, Peter told it to the rest of the Twelve. Judas toldthe secret to the high priest, who used it as the grounds for Jesus’execution (Mark 14:61–64; cf. Dan. 7:13).
Accordingto Schweitzer, when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a mission toproclaim the coming kingdom of God, he did not expect them to return.The Twelve were the “men of violence” (cf. Matt. 11:12)who would provoke the messianic tribulation that would herald thekingdom. Whereas some earlier scholars believed that one could onlywait passively for the kingdom, Schweitzer believed that the missionof Jesus was designed to provoke its coming. When this did nothappen, Jesus determined to give his own life as a ransom for many(Mark 10:45) and so cause the kingdom to come.
Accordingto Schweitzer, Jesus took matters into his own hands by precipitatinghis death, hoping that this would be the catalyst for God to make thewheel of history turn to its climax—the arrival of the kingdomof God. But, said Schweitzer, Jesus was wrong again, and he died indespair. So for Schweitzer, Jesus never witnessed the dawning of theage to come; it lay in the distant future, separated from thispresent age.
Onthe positive side, Schweitzer called attention to the fact that themessage of Jesus is rooted in first-century apocalyptic Judaism andits concept of the kingdom of God. This connection is stillfoundational to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy and theGospels today. On the negative side, Schweitzer’s selective useof evidence and rejection of the historicity of much of the Gospeltradition resulted in a skewed perspective on the present dimensionsof Jesus’ eschatology.
Realizedeschatology.In contrast to futurist eschatology, where the kingdom of God awaitsa final consummation at the end of history, realized eschatologyviews the kingdom of God as already realized in the person andmission of Jesus. The futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching arereduced to a minimum, and his apocalyptic language is viewed assymbolic of theological truths.
Theperson most responsible for advocating this position is Britishscholar C.H. Dodd. In his 1935 book Parables of the Kingdom, hefocused on Jesus’ teachings that announced the arrival of thekingdom with his coming. For instance, in Luke 11:20 Jesus says, “Butif I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of Godhas come upon you” (cf. Luke 17:21; Matt. 13). Eschatologybecomes a matter of the present experience rather than any kind offuture event. The kingdom has fully come in the messianic ministry ofJesus.
Mostinterpreters have criticized Dodd’s realized eschatology forignoring Jesus’ teachings that point to a future consummationof the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 24–25; Mark 13). When all of Jesus’teachings are considered, futurist eschatology balances realizedeschatology. To be sure, the kingdom arrived with Jesus, but Jesushimself taught that history still awaits a final completion. Thekingdom of God is both “already” and “not yet,”which leads us to the third view of the relationship of the kingdomof God to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Inauguratedeschatology. Thethird view, inaugurated eschatology, is commonly connected with thetwentieth-century Swiss theologian Oscar Cullmann. Like others beforehim, Cullmann understood that the Jewish notion of the two agesformed an important background for understanding the message ofJesus. According to Judaism, history is divided into two periods:this age of sin and the age to come (i.e., the kingdom of God). ForJews the advent of the Messiah would effect the shift from the formerto the latter. In other words, Judaism viewed the two ages asconsecutive. According to Cullmann, Jesus Christ announced that theend of time, the kingdom of God, had arrived within history (see Mark1:15 pars.; esp. Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62;10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17,24–25, 29; Acts 28:31). Yet other passages suggest thatalthough the age to come had already dawned, it was not yet complete.It awaited the second coming for its full realization (Luke 13:28–29;14:15; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; Acts 1:6). Hence the adjective“inaugurated” characterizes this eschatology. Such a viewis pervasive in the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:17–21; 3:18, 24;1Cor. 15:24; 1Tim. 4:1; 2Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1John2:18). So for inaugurated eschatology, the two ages are simultaneous:the age to come exists in the midst of this present age. Christianstherefore live in between the two ages until the parousia (secondcoming of Christ).
Wemay break down the data in the Synoptic Gospels regarding the“already/notyet” aspects concerning the kingdom ofGod in this manner: Mark, probably the first Gospel written, recordsJesus’ programmatic statement in 1:15: “The time hascome.... The kingdom of God has come near.”Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, then goes on to demonstrate thatJesus’ miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection inauguratedthe kingdom of God. Yet it is also clear from Matthew, Mark, and Lukethat the final manifestation of the kingdom has not yet happened. Wemay draw on Luke as representative of all three Synoptics. Luke’sGospel indicates that the kingdom was present for Jesus (Luke 7:28;8:10; 10:9–11; 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21), but it alsoawaited the second coming for its completion (6:20–26; 11:2;12:49–50, 51–53; 13:24–30; 21:25–29;22:15–18, 30). The same dual aspect of the kingdom pertains toLuke’s second volume, Acts. The kingdom was present in Jesus’ministry and now through his disciples (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25;28:23–31), but it will not be completed until Christ comesagain (1:6; 14:22).
TheGospel of John
John’sGospel has only three references to the kingdom of God. Nicodemus wastold by Jesus that he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom ofGod (3:3–5). Yet Jesus’ kingdom is not worldly in nature,but spiritual (18:36). Although the Gospel of John contains both thepresent (“already”) aspect and the future (“notyet”) aspect, the focus is clearly on the present. This is whymany scholars label the Fourth Gospel the “Gospel of RealizedEschatology.” This emphasis on the “already” can beseen in John in the following ways: (1)Eternal life, orentrance into the kingdom of God, can be a present possession (3:5–6,36; 6:47, 51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:24–26). (2)Theeschatological promise of sonship is granted to the believer in Jesusnow (1:12–13; 3:3–8; 4:14). (3)The generalresurrection has already begun (5:25). (4)The Spirit, the giftof the end time, currently indwells believers (7:37–39;14:15–31; 15:26–27; 16:5–16; 20:22–23).(5)Final judgment is determined by one’s present responseto Jesus (3:19; 5:22–24, 27, 30–38; 9:38; 12:31–33).(6)The spirit of antichrist has already entered the world sceneto oppose Christ (6:70; 13:2, 27). (7)Jesus’ death on thecross seems to absorb some elements of the messianic woes or aspectsof tribulation. In other words, Jesus’ passion was where theend-time holy war was waged, and his death and resurrection began theend of the forces of evil (15:18–16:11).
Onthe other hand, the Gospel of John also includes some typical future(“not yet”) aspects of eschatology. For example, thefuture resurrection is still expected (5:26–30). Likewise, thefuture second coming of Christ is alluded to (14:1–4; 21:22).Admittedly, however, the “already” aspect of the kingdomof God seems to overshadow the “not yet” perspective inthe Fourth Gospel.
PaulineLiterature
Thephrase “kingdom of God” and/or “kingdom of Christ”occurs twelve times in Paul’s writings.
Rom.14:17 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 4:20 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 6:9-10 – kingdom of God (2x) (future tense)
1Cor. 15:24 – kingdom of Christ/God (present/future tense)
1Cor. 15:50 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Gal.5:21 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Eph.5:5 – kingdom of Christ/God (future tense)
Col.1:13 – kingdom of the Son (present tense)
Col.4:11 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Thess. 2:12 – his [God’s] kingdom (future tense)
2Thess. 1:5 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Threeobservations emerge from the chart: (1)The kingdom ofChrist/God is both present and future, already here and not yetcomplete. This is consistent with the Gospels and Acts. (2)Christand God are, in at least two instances, interchanged, suggestingequality of status between them (cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10).(3)In 1Cor. 15:24 we find the most precise description ofthe exact relationship between the kingdoms of Christ and God: theinterim messianic kingdom begun at the resurrection of Christ willone day give way to the eternal kingdom of God. Such a temporarykingdom is attested to in apocalyptic Judaism and may underlie Rev.20:1–6.
Christianstherefore live in between the two ages, in the messianic kingdom.
Hebrewsand the General Epistles
Hebrewsand the General Epistles continue the theme of the “already/notyet”aspects of the kingdom.
Hebrews.The following ideas associated in Second Temple Judaism with thearrival of God’s kingdom are seen by the author of Hebrews tohave been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ: (1)theappearance of the Messiah of the last days indicates the dawning ofthe kingdom of God (1:2; 9:9–10); (2)the greattribulation/messianic woes that were expected to occur in connectionwith the advent of the Messiah are now here (2:5–18; cf. 5:8–9;7:27–28; 10:12; 12:2); (3)the outpouring of the HolySpirit has happened (6:4–5); (4)the manifestation of theeschatological high priest at the end of history has taken place inJesus (7:26–28), who has also established the new covenant ofthe last days (8:6–13). Compare the preceding statements inHebrews with that author’s explicit mention of the presence ofthe kingdom of God in 12:18–28. And yet the kingdom of God isnot yet fully here. The church continues to suffer the messianicwoes, as is evidenced in the intermingling of Jesus’ sufferingof the great tribulation with the present afflictions of theChristian (2:5–18; 3:7–4:6; 5:7–6:12; 10:19–39;12:1–2; 13:11–16). Furthermore, the exhortations topersevere in the faith that punctuate the book of Hebrews (2:1–4;3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) area familiar theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.
TheGeneral Epistles.The main message of James is that the last days are here (1:2; 5:3)and with it the messianic woes (1:2–12; 5:1–12).Therefore, believers will need to faithfully endure the greattribulation until the second coming of Christ. But there are twoindications that James also teaches that the kingdom of God hasdawned in the midst of the great tribulation. First, Christiansexperience even now the eschatological quality of joy (James 1:2–3;cf. Joel 2:21–27). Second, Christians also share in theend-time gift of wisdom (James 1:5–8).
FirstPeteris similar to James with regard to its inaugurated eschatology. Thus,the church suffers the messianic woes/great tribulation (1Pet.1:6, 11; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 5:1–9). Nevertheless,the age to come/kingdom of God has broken into the midst of this age,as evidenced by the eschatological joy and God’s protectivepower that it brings (1:5–6).
SecondPeterdoes seem to stress the “not yet” aspect of the kingdomof God. Thus, the kingdom of God still waits to be entered (1:11), ishindered by end-time apostasy (2Pet. 2), and has been postponed(3:1–10). Yet the “already” aspect of the kingdomis not entirely absent. This is evidenced by the fact that thetransfiguration of Christ on the mountain was a display of the comingpower and glory of the age to come, a glory revealed to the discipleson the mountain and now communicated to all believers (1:16–19).
Judeis devoted to alerting Christians to the reality that they are in themidst of the end-time holy war (vv. 3, 20–23), as can be seenby their struggle with the false teaching of end-time apostasy (vv.5–19). Nevertheless, because believers possess theeschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, they will prevail to fullyenter the kingdom of God (v.20).
TheLetters of John attest to the overlapping of the two ages—thatis, inaugurated eschatology. Thus, on the one hand, the spirit ofantichrist is here (1John 2:18; 2John 7), along with thefalse teaching that it breeds (1John 2:20–29; cf. 2–3John); but on the other hand, the Johannine community has theend-time anointing of the Holy Spirit, which preserves believers fromevil and deception (1John 2:20–21; 3:1–10).Moreover, Christians presently have eternal life through Christ, oneof the blessings of the kingdom of God (1John 5:11–13).
Revelation
The“already/notyet” aspects of the kingdom of God aremanifested in Revelation in the following way: the kingdom of God hasalready dawned in heaven, but it has not yet appeared on earth.Regarding the former, it is clear from 1:9; 5:1–14; 12:1–6that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated the advent ofthe kingdom of God in heaven. Thus, Jesus obediently underwent themessianic woes on the cross and was then raised to heavenly glory,triumphant over the great tribulation. There in heaven, Christ reignsas the invisible Lord over all (including Caesar). But that thekingdom of God has not yet descended to earth is clear in Revelationfrom two present realities. First, even though Jesus has endured thegreat tribulation/messianic woes, his followers continue to face manytrials (chaps. 6–18). There is no deliverance for them fromsuch affliction until the return of Christ in glory (chap. 19). Theonly possible exception to this is the divine protection of the144,000 (chaps. 7; 14). Second, the kingdom of God has not appearedon earth; that event awaits the parousia (chap. 20 [assuming that thepremillennial interpretation of that chapter is the most viablereading]). In all of this, it seems that the messianic woes/greattribulation are the divine means for purging the earth in preparationfor the future arrival of the temporal, messianic kingdom (chap. 20).After Christ’s one-thousand-year reign on earth, this temporalmessianic kingdom will give way to the eternal kingdom of God and itsnew earth and new heaven (chaps. 21–22). It must beacknowledged, however, that interpretations of chapters 20–22greatly vary, depending on whether one takes a premillennial,amillennial, or postmillennial perspective.
Conclusion
Thepreceding data thus seem to confirm that the most apt description ofthe relationship between the two ages and the kingdom of God thatinforms the NT is inaugurated eschatology: with the first coming ofChrist, the kingdom of God/the age to come dawned, but it will not beuntil the second coming of Christ that the age to come/kingdom of Godwill be complete. The church therefore lives in between the times.That is to say, the age to come has broken into this present age, andit is only through the eye of faith that one can now perceive thepresence of the kingdom of God.
Although essentially characterized by bearing offspring, amother is associated with much more in the Bible. Especiallyprominent are the characteristic ways in which a mother relates toher children: she tends to their needs (1Thess. 2:7), looksafter their welfare (1Kings 3:16–27), comforts them (Ps.131:2), and instructs them (Prov. 1:8; 31:1).
Motherhoodis held in high regard. Bearing a child is an occasion for rejoicing(Gen. 4:1; Ps. 113:9). A virtuous and industrious mother is praisedby her children and husband alike (Prov. 31:28). The Bible describesa mother both crowning a king (Song 3:11) and sitting beside histhrone (1Kings 2:19). The death of a mother brings extremesorrow (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 35:14). Furthermore, God’s promises areoften associated with the birth of a child (e.g., Gen. 3:15; 12:2–3;Judg. 13:3; Isa. 7:14). Mary is blessed among women as the mother ofJesus Christ (Luke 1:42–45). Finally, the Bible protects thedignity of a mother as it does that of the father. The law requireshonor and reverence for both father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Lev.19:3; Deut. 5:16) and condemns to death those who strike or curseeither parent (Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9).
Thereis also great concern that adult children look after the welfare oftheir parents as a means of honoring them. David makes provisions forhis parents as he flees from Saul (1Sam. 22:3–4). Jesuscondemns the Pharisees and the scribes for taking the resources duetheir parents and offering them as a gift to God instead (Matt.15:4–6). Even Jesus’ final act upon the cross is toensure the welfare of his mother by defining her relationship withthe Beloved Disciple as mother and son (John 19:26–27). On theother hand, Jesus makes clear that concern for one’s family issubordinate to discipleship to him (Matt. 10:37; Mark 3:35; Luke14:26).
Theword “mother” also carries symbolic or metaphoricalsenses. Sometimes the “mother” is a fitting example ofother things or persons like it, such as Babylon the Great as themother of prostitutes and earthly abominations (Rev. 17:5). In theextended analogy between Hosea’s marriage and God’srelationship to Israel, the nation is called a “mother,”and its inhabitants are her “children” (Hos. 2:4; 4:5;cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 50:12). The image of a mother may also refer to alarge city (2Sam. 20:19; Gal. 4:26).
In the early church, preaching often took place in amissionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive varietyof words is used to describe preaching tounbelievers, including the following: “evangelize”(euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce”(anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō[Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8,26]). Preachingto believers also took place, in a worship context. This articlehighlights the latter context.
Influenceson Preaching
Fromits inception, a core component of Christian worship was the publicproclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preachingtook in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seemmost influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, thepractices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Romanrhetoric.
Prophesying.The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be anearly form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking inthe church in Corinth (1Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was thatform of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, wasshared and the church was edified (1Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1,3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship communitytested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1Cor.14:29; cf. 1Thess. 5:19–22; 1John 4:1–3).
Acouple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was moreclosely related to preachingthan to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend theformer but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, thefunction of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1Cor.14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’smost comprehensiveterm for public proclamation (e.g., 1Thess. 2:3–4). Thatis why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in theprocess of prophesying (1Cor. 14:29–31). The practice ofprophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.
Synagogue.Another element influencing early Christian preaching was thesynagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preachingflowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In thesynagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed bycommentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).
Thesetwo components—prophecy and the reading and exposition ofScripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencingthe shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remainsuncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices inChristian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue,took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adoptedit into the context of worship in house churches, along with theJewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesyingmerged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture tocreate a more systematic form of proclamation.
Theexposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging thevalidity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria forverifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone;it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20,21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrinesof the church (1Cor. 14:29, 37; 1John 4:1–3).
Greco-Romanrhetoric.A third component influencing early Christian preaching was theclassical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings ofrhetoric saturatedthe culture and education of the day.However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christianculture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiaritywith Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that itsinfluence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.
Sermonsand Their Content
TheNT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a publicworship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon tothe elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preachingbecause it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teachingin his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’sletters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. Hisletters have an oral quality about them and were read in theassemblies (Col. 4:16; 1Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’sletters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.
Anotherimportant issue related to early Christian preaching involves thecontent of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction shouldbe made between kerygma and didachē. C.H. Dodd hasdefinedearly Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The termhe uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was anevangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed tonon-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was anethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians.However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between thetwo. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal(paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1Thess. 2:2–3 with2Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce thegood news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate thatgood news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachēembodied the content of early Christian preaching.
In the early church, preaching often took place in amissionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive varietyof words is used to describe preaching tounbelievers, including the following: “evangelize”(euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce”(anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō[Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8,26]). Preachingto believers also took place, in a worship context. This articlehighlights the latter context.
Influenceson Preaching
Fromits inception, a core component of Christian worship was the publicproclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preachingtook in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seemmost influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, thepractices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Romanrhetoric.
Prophesying.The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be anearly form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking inthe church in Corinth (1Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was thatform of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, wasshared and the church was edified (1Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1,3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship communitytested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1Cor.14:29; cf. 1Thess. 5:19–22; 1John 4:1–3).
Acouple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was moreclosely related to preachingthan to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend theformer but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, thefunction of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1Cor.14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’smost comprehensiveterm for public proclamation (e.g., 1Thess. 2:3–4). Thatis why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in theprocess of prophesying (1Cor. 14:29–31). The practice ofprophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.
Synagogue.Another element influencing early Christian preaching was thesynagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preachingflowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In thesynagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed bycommentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).
Thesetwo components—prophecy and the reading and exposition ofScripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencingthe shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remainsuncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices inChristian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue,took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adoptedit into the context of worship in house churches, along with theJewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesyingmerged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture tocreate a more systematic form of proclamation.
Theexposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging thevalidity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria forverifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone;it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20,21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrinesof the church (1Cor. 14:29, 37; 1John 4:1–3).
Greco-Romanrhetoric.A third component influencing early Christian preaching was theclassical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings ofrhetoric saturatedthe culture and education of the day.However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christianculture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiaritywith Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that itsinfluence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.
Sermonsand Their Content
TheNT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a publicworship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon tothe elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preachingbecause it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teachingin his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’sletters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. Hisletters have an oral quality about them and were read in theassemblies (Col. 4:16; 1Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’sletters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.
Anotherimportant issue related to early Christian preaching involves thecontent of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction shouldbe made between kerygma and didachē. C.H. Dodd hasdefinedearly Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The termhe uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was anevangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed tonon-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was anethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians.However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between thetwo. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal(paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1Thess. 2:2–3 with2Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce thegood news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate thatgood news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachēembodied the content of early Christian preaching.
Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of theBible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness,correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, andinnocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it hasimportant implications for the doctrine of salvation (see alsoJustification).
OldTestament
Divinerighteousness.Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories ontoOT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness isconformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness,justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many andvaried uses of righteousness language in the OT stands thepresupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense(e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is theexpression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), andall other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derivedfrom this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightnessin his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut.4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts arerighteous (Judg. 5:11; 1Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgmentsare righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness(Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked toGod’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71)and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader thandeliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding therighteous), though it does include it.
Humanrighteousness. Relatedto humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite ofwickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, whereit relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of theworld as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). Godreigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humansshould align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousnesscan be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “myrighteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “theirrighteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found inpoetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust areparallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).
Itseems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was moreconcrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of mostcontemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understandingrighteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous personis sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness inthe OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7),there are many more references to a righteousness grounded inparticular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10).Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpfuldistinction between “ordinary” and “absolute”righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind ofrighteousness that we intend when making comments such as “mywife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broadperspective, that her life is characterized predominantly byrighteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness,absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparativerighteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1Sam. 24:17;Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is theextraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work ofGod; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.
NoncanonicalJewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varyinggreatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of humanand divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often isassociated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poorand is contrasted with wickedness.
InGreco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtuesand thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Romanrighteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind ofexternal norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact thatrighteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Romanliterature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often wereembedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not onlyviolated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, butalso impacted humans.
NewTestament
Ordinaryhuman righteousness. Righteousnesslanguage is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in lightof OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit withthe Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people,and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conductwith respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness(Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own(e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While thespecific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in theGospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will iswidely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness,mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continuethese general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related topersonal conduct (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim.2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor.6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An exampleof righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostituteRahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).
TheNT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In theSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirementsof righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, ashocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners ratherthan the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitlyquestions the righteousness of the “righteous.” Insimilar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness ofone’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke18:9).
Divinerighteousness. TheNT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to Godhimself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf.Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commandsand laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge(2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does notcompromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26).The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness andwickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation inrighteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g.,Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52;22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilledrighteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating completeconformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). Healso fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his savingactivity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).
“Therighteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness.Thereis a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness andhis faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66).Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’ssaving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g.,Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness ofGod,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22[2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousnessof God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God”could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness fromGod (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to hisrighteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms),or some combination of these.
Therighteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “therighteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from theMosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom.1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarifiedin that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews andGentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguishedfrom righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26).In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a characterquality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness ofGod” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).
InRom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “therighteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their ownrighteousness because they are not submitting to “therighteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’srighteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectationsof his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness ofGod” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus(e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key tounderstanding “the righteousness of God” in the othertexts also.
InRom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, whichis the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5,16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust inJesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25)enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). InJesus we become the righteousness of God (2Cor. 5:21). Therighteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealedand manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ,whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous inChrist.
The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OTsuffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev.26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25;cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by whichblessing comes to humanity.
TheBible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17;6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18;1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assumethat he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4,20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in thefinal chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friendsfor their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writermakes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness.Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume thatblindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesusrejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3,6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
Theprayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal andthirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within thelaments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, makerequests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Whyhave you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints againstGod (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“Youhave made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemiesmock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm andnot a man” [22:6]).
TheNT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in theOT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3;26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps.22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presentedas the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation,God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8;Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the pricefor sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set freefrom sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18).(3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom.8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet.2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13),and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to sufferas his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provideshope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil.3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev.21:4).
Thereare many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19;16:22–24; 18:17; 2Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb.10:32; 1Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’splan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1Thess. 3:2–4) and ispart of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22;Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1Pet. 2:21; 4:12).
TheNT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it hasbecome part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering ofbelievers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel(Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11;6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16;2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor.1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb.10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God(Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), andthe crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of thedevelopment toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor.4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Sufferingis associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal(2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness,sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10);comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8);blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor.4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christiansuffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character andhope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity andcompleteness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentarywhen compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom.8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7;4:12–13).
Throughoutthe Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OTlaw provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged,and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10,35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesusregularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3;19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom.12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom.12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visitprisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
The English term “witness” occurs in bothTestaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One commonmeaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to thelegitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15–16,18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occursprimarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especiallyGod—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23;Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensicdimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g.,Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).
Centralto the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. Thiswas a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legalproceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimonyagainst anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT(cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was sosignificant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearingfalse witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).
Truth-tellingwas not something that the people of Israel were called to merelyamong themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to thenations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence andholiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod.19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israelfailed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind”(Isa. 42:19).
TheNT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’switnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testifyconcerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context thatJesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world”(John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithfulwitness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designatedas “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then calledto bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
“Witness”is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one hasseen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legaltestimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replaceJudas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesusfrom the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “oneof these must become a witness with us of his resurrection”(Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close ofthe Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies tothese things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony istrue” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern forwitnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundredothers, and himself as among those who have witnessed theresurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).
Whilelinguistically the Greek word martys(“witness”) has given rise to the English term “martyr,”at the time of the NT martysdid not connote physical martyrdom. Instead, it is likely that theuse of this term in the book of Revelation and its association withthe deaths of those who faithfully witnessed to Jesus Christ and thegospel in the face of persecution gave rise to its application in thetechnical sense of “martyr.”
ThroughoutRevelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearingwitness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of thiswitness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred,and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev.2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, whoexplicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and areeventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they havefinished “their testimony” (11:7).
Itis this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads tothe second-century employment of “martyr” as adesignation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point ofdeath. See also Martyr.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
1 Thessalonians 2:1-16
is mentioned in the definition.
Bible formation and canon development are best understood inlight of historical events and theological principles. In thehistorical-theological process we learn what God did and how heengaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God.The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who madehimself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to revealhimself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative andthus copied and preserved for future generations. The process ofrecognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scripturesoccurred over time and involved consensus.
BibleFormation
Revelation.Theprocess of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act ofrevelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in aprogressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God theHoly Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that theycomposed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used thebiblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in amanner that kept them from error in composing the original writtenproduct, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constituteGod’s permanent special revelation to humankind.
BothTestaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation ofa body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thussays the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh.24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Everypart of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This isconfirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt.19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).
FourNT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factualstatement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the HolySpirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the propheticword, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the wordsin the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Petercomments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literarydocuments in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).
Authority.Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative.Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliablycomposed in the originals, it is binding upon people in theirrelationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derivesfrom God’s eternal character and the content of his wordpreserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God isauthoritative and requires obedience.
Theauthority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in thecreation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelledagainst God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled fromthe garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’sspoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief andconduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it(Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritativeword embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11).The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1;53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel forhis own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spiritimpresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as thereliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).
Godmade provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of hisauthoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. Godcommanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18;24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative andpersonal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3).Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved(Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35;1 Pet. 1:22–25).
Canonization
Canonizationis the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word“canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, orrule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, itdesignates the collection of books revealed by God, divinelyinspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritativenorm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is thatGod spoke to his human creatures and his word was accuratelyrecorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composedby human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functionedauthoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God thenrecognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspiredand authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).
Thecanonical process.The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that theScriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process forrecognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of thisprocess is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles,and historical precedents.
Canonicalidentification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, whoworked in connection with the believers to recognize the writtendocuments given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spiritenabled believers to discern a book’s authority and itscompatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positivelysettled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets asthe OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NTauthors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God andto contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb.4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).
Overtime, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a bodyof literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During thisprocess, some believers struggled with the message, content, andambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT.The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT providedthe foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon.Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical werethose that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinallysound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.
Inthe collection task some texts were recognized (hom*ologoumena), somewere disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox(pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespreadacceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until thethird century AD.
Structureand content.Overthe centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, ofteninfluenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, theSamaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT,was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything inIsrael or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary intheir inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and intheir list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.
TheBabylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all thebooks now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: theLaw, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as theTanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law”(torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings”(ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-fourbooks (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, asare 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, andEzra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are thesame as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions.The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses(Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided intothe Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are thehistorical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The LatterProphets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writingssection contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with somehistorical material.
Historicalreferences to this canonical format are found in extrabiblicalsources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus BenSira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphalbook Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44(cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division ispreserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated withBishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin churchfather (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon oftwenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions followa fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.
Thetwenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated withchurches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world.Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius(AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical listassociated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentarylists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms ofusage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used thetwenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, NewTestament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.
Bible formation and canon development are best understood inlight of historical events and theological principles. In thehistorical-theological process we learn what God did and how heengaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God.The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who madehimself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to revealhimself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative andthus copied and preserved for future generations. The process ofrecognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scripturesoccurred over time and involved consensus.
BibleFormation
Revelation.Theprocess of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act ofrevelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in aprogressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God theHoly Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that theycomposed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used thebiblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in amanner that kept them from error in composing the original writtenproduct, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constituteGod’s permanent special revelation to humankind.
BothTestaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation ofa body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thussays the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh.24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Everypart of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This isconfirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt.19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).
FourNT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factualstatement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the HolySpirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the propheticword, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the wordsin the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Petercomments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literarydocuments in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).
Authority.Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative.Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliablycomposed in the originals, it is binding upon people in theirrelationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derivesfrom God’s eternal character and the content of his wordpreserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God isauthoritative and requires obedience.
Theauthority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in thecreation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelledagainst God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled fromthe garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’sspoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief andconduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it(Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritativeword embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11).The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1;53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel forhis own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spiritimpresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as thereliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).
Godmade provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of hisauthoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. Godcommanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18;24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative andpersonal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3).Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved(Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35;1 Pet. 1:22–25).
Canonization
Canonizationis the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word“canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, orrule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, itdesignates the collection of books revealed by God, divinelyinspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritativenorm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is thatGod spoke to his human creatures and his word was accuratelyrecorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composedby human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functionedauthoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God thenrecognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspiredand authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).
Thecanonical process.The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that theScriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process forrecognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of thisprocess is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles,and historical precedents.
Canonicalidentification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, whoworked in connection with the believers to recognize the writtendocuments given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spiritenabled believers to discern a book’s authority and itscompatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positivelysettled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets asthe OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NTauthors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God andto contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb.4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).
Overtime, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a bodyof literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During thisprocess, some believers struggled with the message, content, andambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT.The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT providedthe foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon.Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical werethose that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinallysound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.
Inthe collection task some texts were recognized (hom*ologoumena), somewere disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox(pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespreadacceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until thethird century AD.
Structureand content.Overthe centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, ofteninfluenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, theSamaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT,was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything inIsrael or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary intheir inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and intheir list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.
TheBabylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all thebooks now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: theLaw, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as theTanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law”(torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings”(ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-fourbooks (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, asare 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, andEzra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are thesame as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions.The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses(Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided intothe Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are thehistorical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The LatterProphets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writingssection contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with somehistorical material.
Historicalreferences to this canonical format are found in extrabiblicalsources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus BenSira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphalbook Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44(cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division ispreserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated withBishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin churchfather (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon oftwenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions followa fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.
Thetwenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated withchurches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world.Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius(AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical listassociated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentarylists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms ofusage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used thetwenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, NewTestament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.
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.
Evangelism is the proclamation of the “evangel”(Gk. euangelion), the good news, of Jesus Christ. The content of theevangel includes Jesus’ birth, which was announced as good newsto Zechariah by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:19) and by the angels tothe shepherds (Luke 2:10). The good news speaks of the reality ofJesus’ resurrection (Acts 17:18), is described as a message ofgrace (Acts 20:24) and reconciliation to God through the sacrificedbody of Christ (Col. 1:22–23), and includes the expectation ofa day of divine judgment (Rom. 2:16). Paul preached the gospel (fromOld English gōdspel, “good news”) message, which heclaimed had its origin with God, not humans (Gal. 1:11–12). Hesummarizes this message in 1Cor. 15:3b–5: “thatChrist died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he wasburied, that he was raised on the third day according to theScriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.”The introduction to the Gospel of Mark (1:1) may indicate that thiswritten gospel could serve evangelistic purposes.
Evangelisticefforts in the New Testament.Numerous figures throughout the NT participated in evangelisticendeavors. John the Baptist’s preaching about the comingMessiah is described as evangelism (Luke 3:18). Evangelism was acharacteristic activity of Jesus’ own ministry (Matt. 4:23;9:35; Mark 1:14; Luke 20:1), which focused on proclaiming the adventof the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; 8:1) and at times was targetedtoward the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18; 7:22). Jesus commanded thosewho follow him to engage in evangelism. He sent out the twelveapostles for evangelistic purposes (Luke 9:2), and he issued theGreat Commission to this end (Matt. 28:18–20).
Themissionary enterprise recorded in Acts demonstrates the efforts ofthe earliest Christians to spread the gospel. The apostles inJerusalem (Acts 5:42) proclaimed the gospel in spite of greatopposition and persecution, and believers who were scattered outsideJerusalem because of persecution spread the gospel in new locales(8:4). Philip evangelized Samaritans and an Ethiopian (8:12, 35). Theministry of Paul and Barnabas is characterized as preaching the goodnews (14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18). Philip, one of the sevenchosen to distribute food (6:5), was given the name “theEvangelist” (21:8). Timothy, additionally, is said to be Paul’sfellow worker in evangelism (1Thess. 3:2; cf. 2Tim. 4:5).
Evangelismwas a central part of Paul’s ministry (Rom. 1:9; 1Cor.1:17; 15:1–2; Eph. 6:19; 1Thess. 2:2, 9). He indicated anexplicit interest in sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Rom. 15:16;Gal. 1:16; 2:7; Eph. 3:8) and with those who had never heard it (Rom.15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16), and he expressed a desire to preach the gospelat Rome (Rom. 1:15). Paul wrote of the necessity of evangelism inorder for people to be saved (Rom. 10:15), and he preached the gospelmessage free of charge (1Cor. 9:16, 18; 2Cor. 11:7). Helisted the role of the evangelist in the church along with apostles,prophets, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).
Goaland methods of evangelism.Evangelism’s goal is to spread the gospel across ethnic andreligious boundaries until it reaches all nations (Mark 13:10; Col.1:23). To this end, Acts details an intentional effort by theearliest Christians to share the gospel with those who came from bothJewish and non-Jewish backgrounds. Acts 8:25 records Peter and John’sevangelistic efforts in Samaritan villages, and Acts 15:7 identifiesPeter as an evangelist to Gentiles. An outreach specifically toGentiles is chronicled in Acts 11:20, and Paul’s intentionalprogram of traveling from city to city further contributes to thisgoal (Rom. 15:19).
Theevangelists recorded in the NT demonstrate a range of methods andapproaches to sharing the good news. They often began with a point ofcontact from the religious worldview of their audience. For instance,Philip used Scripture as a starting point in speaking with anindividual who was familiar with some portion of it (Acts 8:35).Similarly, when addressing Jews, Paul preached Jesus as thefulfillment of various OT Scriptures (Acts 13:32–41), but whenpreaching the gospel to the Greeks in Athens, he acknowledged theirreligiosity and their previous worship of one called “anunknown God” (17:22–23). Evangelists sought opportunitiesto gain an audience, and Paul even took advantage of an illness tostay with the Galatians and share the gospel with them (Gal. 4:13).Finally, much of the evangelistic work in the early church wascoupled with miraculous signs and wonders, which served toauthenticate the message being proclaimed (Rom. 15:19; 1Thess.1:5).
In 1 Thessalonians the apostle Paul writes to the churchshortly after his first visit there to commend it for its faith andfaithfulness to the Lord and to note its good testimony through theregions of Macedonia, Achaia, and everywhere else. He instructs it asto certain issues in the Christian life, the future of the believersin the assembly who have already died, and the relation of thesebelievers to Christ’s coming as they continue to quietly workand wait for him.
LiteraryConsiderations
Theauthor of the book is the apostle Paul, as noted in the salutation(1:1). The book fits the style and vocabulary of Paul, the churchfathers accepted it as Pauline, and the description of the historicalbackground certainly fits what we know from the book of Acts. Thebook is accepted as Pauline by all but the most skeptical. It waswritten from Corinth after Timothy met Paul there with a report aboutthe welfare of the church (3:6). Paul had been forced to leave afterspending very little time there (a length of three Sabbath days isnoted in Acts 17:2), and he was concerned about the well-being of thechurch. Written around AD 50–52 during the second missionaryjourney, it may be the earliest of Paul’s letters (exceptperhaps Galatians). Written in typical epistolary style, the bookincludes the usual salutation and thanksgiving, body and content, andclosing. The tone of the book is congenial. Missing are the sharp andsarcastic statements found in some other letters, particularlyGalatians and 2Corinthians. Paul is truly pleased with thegrowth of this church, though he does have instruction for it.
HistoricalSetting
Theapostle Paul, on his second missionary journey, had been forbiddenfrom preaching the gospel in several areas of Asia Minor, andsubsequently he received the Macedonian call to take the gospelacross the Aegean. After winning several to Christ and being run outof Philippi (1Thess. 2:2), Paul and his missionary companionscame to the city of Thessalonica, where Paul taught in the synagoguefor three Sabbaths. A number of God-fearers and women believed theteaching of Paul, but because of opposition from the Jews (who werejealous), the missionaries left and went to Berea. The Jews in Bereawere said to be more open-minded than the Thessalonians, since theywere willing to check Paul’s message against Scripture (Acts17:11). As for the church in Thessalonica, in this initial meetingPaul had been with them a very short time, yet he had much for whichto commend them in his letter. Paul evidently returned to teach thisassembly again on his third missionary journey, after spendingseveral years in Ephesus (Acts 20:1).
Outlineand Content
I.Greeting and Thanksgiving (1:1–10)
II.Defense of Apostolic Actions (2:1–16)
III.Separation from the Thessalonians and Sending of Timothy (2:17–3:13)
IV.Holy Living and Continued Work (4:1–12)
V.The Lord’s Return Gives the Thessalonians Hope (4:13–5:11)
VI.Closing Comments (5:12–28)
I.Greeting and thanksgiving (1:1–10).As Paul opens the letter, he greets the church and notes histhanksgiving to God for their work and their endurance in the thingsof Christ (1:2–5). Paul commends these believers on theirreception of the gospel and on the imitation of the life and ethicthat has flowed from that reception. As a consequence, Paul notesthat they themselves are now an example to the other churches(1:6–10).
II.Defense of apostolic actions (2:1–16). Paulnotes his apostolic disposition toward the Thessalonians as one ofhumility as he has taught them the gospel (2:1–12). Paul andhis missionary companions do not seek to please human beings, andthey do not do what they do for greed, but in fact they work nightand day for a living. They have treated the Thessalonians well,insisting that they live in a manner reflective of the kingdom. Afteraccepting the gospel as the word of God (2:13), the Thessalonianshave experienced persecution from those who opposed the gospel. Theseopponents will incur God’s wrath (2:14–16).
III.Separation from the Thessalonians and sending of Timothy (2:17–3:13).In this section, Paul insists that even though he has desired to seethe Thessalonians, he has been persistently hindered by Satan(2:17–20). Because of this prolonged absence, Paul had beenforced to send Timothy as a messenger. Paul has done this because hehad urgently desired to know their spiritual state (3:1–5).When Timothy came back with the report about the faithfulness of theThessalonians, Paul had rejoiced and given thanks (3:6–10).Paul notes that their longing to see him has been a joyful thing tohim, and he is glad to know of their disposition toward him. Paulconcludes as he prays for their increased love and holiness(3:11–13).
IV.Holy living and continued work (4:1–12). Paulnotes that the Thessalonians have been living ethically, but that hewants to remind them to do so more and more. They are to live theirlives in sanctification and honor instead of sexual immorality(4:1–8). They should love one another and continue to live inthe quietness and peace of regular work (4:9–12). Though theLord will soon come, this is no reason to abandon work. Paulinstructs them to continue working hard so that they will not be inneed as they watch and wait for Christ (a problem continuing into2Thessalonians [3:10–11]).
V.The Lord’s return gives the Thessalonians hope (4:13–5:11).In order to correct another misunderstanding about the Lord’scoming, Paul turns to the issue of the believer’s future hope.Some of the church members had been confused about the destiny of thebelievers now deceased. Paul instructs them that at the coming of theLord those who have died will be raised to meet the Lord with theliving (4:13–18). This should be a matter of comfort to thebelievers. As to the time of Christ’s coming, Paul notes thatit will be sudden and unknown (5:1–2). The unbelievers will beunaware as sudden destruction comes upon them (5:3). But believers,who are sensitive to the life of Christ and his coming, should not becaught off guard when he comes. This expectation should have animpact on the way they live now (5:4–9). In any event, whetherthe believers are still alive or are deceased in Christ, both willcome together in him at his coming (5:10).
VI.Closing comments (5:12–28).In the last section, Paul gives final ethical instructions to thechurch. The church should highly esteem those in leadership becausethey are working hard. In a final word about prayer, thanksgiving,and the Holy Spirit’s work in the believer, Paul concludes thatthe believers should shun every form of evil. He instructs that theletter be read to all the believers.
A quality of completeness or uprightness; often it isexpressed in terms of someone being “blameless.” Howeverit does not, as the English word implies, suggest sinlessness. Inbiblical thought, integrity is grounded not in a list of charactertraits but rather in one’s relationship to God. Single-mindeddevotion to God is the environment in which integrity flourishes(1Kings 9:4–5).
Scripturedescribes certain individuals as displaying integrity. Noah is “arighteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walkedfaithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9). The narrator describes Job as“blameless and upright,” someone who “feared Godand shunned evil” (Job 1:1, 8). Jesus is identified as a “manof integrity” (NIV) or “truthful” (NASB) by somePharisaic questioners (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14).
Paulrepeatedly defends his own integrity to his churches when he is underattack by his opponents (2Cor. 1:12; 1Thess. 2:1–12)and encourages Titus to teach with integrity (Titus 2:7). Heinstructs both Timothy and Titus that church leaders must be “abovereproach,” “sincere,” and “blameless”—thatis, people of integrity (1Tim. 3:2–10; Titus 1:6–8).
The quality of placing the interests of others beforeoneself. Meekness is vulnerable to connotations of inferiority(1Sam. 9:21). The term is often applied to the sociallyinferior (women, slaves, eunuchs, children), who took on a servilecapacity in the home. The Greeks and the Romans knew from theirmythology that pride (hybris) was a fundamental human flaw (see themyth of Daedalus and Icarus). But its opposite, meekness, was notespecially praised, with most people pursuing a middle course. ButGod removed any sense of inferiority, and therefore a need for amiddle course, by empowering the meekness of two great servants. Thisbiblical virtue is attributed first to Moses (Num. 12:3) and then toJesus (Matt. 11:28–30; 2Cor. 10:1). Before redeemingIsrael from slavery, God delivered Moses from obscurity in thewilderness. He stood in direct contrast to the arrogance of Pharaoh(Exod. 10:3). On several occasions, Moses put the interests of God’speople before his own (e.g., Exod. 32:30–34; 33:12–14).Paul offers a similar narrative about God’s Son, who took onthe form of a slave; and after being mocked, he suffered the mosthumiliating of deaths, that on a cross. But God raised him from deathand seated him at his right hand (Phil. 2:5–11). The apostle’sreaders would have made an immediate comparison with Nero, whopresumed his own deification. The first followers of Jesusdistinguished themselves by making humility central to Christianliving (e.g., Phil. 2:1–5; 1Thess. 2:6–8; James1:21). Jesus pronounced blessing upon all who are meek, those whodesire God’s best for all people, even their enemies, andpromised that they will inherit the land for which he and Mosestoiled (Matt. 5:5; 7:12; cf. Deut. 8:2; Ps. 37:11). In context,meekness takes on the sense of controlled power. Through Isaiah, Godpromised a day set aside to humble the arrogant and raise the spiritsof the humble (Isa. 2:11–12).
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
In the early church, preaching often took place in amissionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive varietyof words is used to describe preaching tounbelievers, including the following: “evangelize”(euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce”(anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō[Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8,26]). Preachingto believers also took place, in a worship context. This articlehighlights the latter context.
Influenceson Preaching
Fromits inception, a core component of Christian worship was the publicproclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preachingtook in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seemmost influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, thepractices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Romanrhetoric.
Prophesying.The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be anearly form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking inthe church in Corinth (1Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was thatform of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, wasshared and the church was edified (1Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1,3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship communitytested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1Cor.14:29; cf. 1Thess. 5:19–22; 1John 4:1–3).
Acouple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was moreclosely related to preachingthan to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend theformer but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, thefunction of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1Cor.14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’smost comprehensiveterm for public proclamation (e.g., 1Thess. 2:3–4). Thatis why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in theprocess of prophesying (1Cor. 14:29–31). The practice ofprophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.
Synagogue.Another element influencing early Christian preaching was thesynagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preachingflowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In thesynagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed bycommentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).
Thesetwo components—prophecy and the reading and exposition ofScripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencingthe shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remainsuncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices inChristian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue,took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adoptedit into the context of worship in house churches, along with theJewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesyingmerged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture tocreate a more systematic form of proclamation.
Theexposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging thevalidity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria forverifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone;it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20,21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrinesof the church (1Cor. 14:29, 37; 1John 4:1–3).
Greco-Romanrhetoric.A third component influencing early Christian preaching was theclassical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings ofrhetoric saturatedthe culture and education of the day.However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christianculture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiaritywith Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that itsinfluence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.
Sermonsand Their Content
TheNT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a publicworship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon tothe elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preachingbecause it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teachingin his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’sletters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. Hisletters have an oral quality about them and were read in theassemblies (Col. 4:16; 1Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’sletters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.
Anotherimportant issue related to early Christian preaching involves thecontent of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction shouldbe made between kerygma and didachē. C.H. Dodd hasdefinedearly Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The termhe uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was anevangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed tonon-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was anethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians.However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between thetwo. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal(paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1Thess. 2:2–3 with2Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce thegood news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate thatgood news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachēembodied the content of early Christian preaching.
Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians addresses achurch troubled by an overly realized eschatology. Whereas at thetime ofthe first letter the Thessalonians were expecting theimminent return of Christ (1Thess. 5:6), by thetime ofthe second letter some believed that Christ had already come(2Thess. 2:2). Because of this, some were being drawn fromtheir work into idleness (2Thess. 3:6). Paul’s purpose,then, was to correct their eschatology, restore them to their tasks,and rebuild their confidence in Christ. He does this both byemphasizing Jesus Christ as Lord (the letter is uniquely consistentin the NT in applying the title “Lord” [Gk. kyrios] toJesus) and by describing two apocalyptic events that must happenbefore the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ: the great apostasy andthe appearance of the man of lawlessness (2Thess. 2:3).Scholars have noted that Paul most often refers to Jesus as Lord inhortatory and eschatological passages. Indeed, though brief,2Thessalonians emphasizes exhortation and eschatology.
LiteraryConsiderations
Authorshipand the question of pseudo-nymity. Asearly as AD 110, Polycarp of Smyrna alluded to 2Thessaloniansin his letter to the Philippians (Pol. Phil. 11:4), and both Marcionand the Muratorian Canon refer to the epistle. It was known toIgnatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. In the modern era,beginning at the end of the eighteenth century, the Paulineauthorship of the epistle was questioned, first by J.E.C.Schmidt, then by F.C. Baur, and more fully by W.Wrede,who dated the letter to a little before the date implied inPolycarp’s letter.
Comparisonof 1 and 2Thessalonians.The case for pseudonymous authorship depends largely on a comparisonbetween 1Thessalonians and 2Thessalonians. The lettersshare a number of similarities in language, style, and content,including similarly worded salutations (1Thess. 1:1; 2Thess.1:1–2), expressions of thanks (1Thess. 1:2; 2:13; 3:9;2Thess. 1:3; 2:13), intercessory prayers (1Thess. 3:11;2Thess. 2:16), references to the broad reputation of theThessalonian church (1Thess. 1:1–10; 2Thess.1:3–4), the persecution of the Thessalonian church (1Thess.2:14–16; 2Thess. 1:5–10), divine election (1Thess.1:4; 2Thess. 2:13), references to a personalized antagonist(“Satan” in 1Thess. 2:18; “the evil one”in 2Thess. 3:3), the exhortation to avoid idleness (1Thess.4:11–12; 5:14; 2Thess. 3:7–13), a common concernfor the parousia and its anticipation (1Thess. 4:13–5:11;2Thess. 2:1–11), and a number of stylistic resemblances(cf. 1Thess. 3:11 with 2Thess. 2:16; 1Thess. 4:1with 2Thess. 3:1; 1Thess. 5:23 with 2Thess. 3:16).
Inaddition to resemblances, advocates of pseudonymous authorship haveperceived some deep discontinuities between the letters. Thequestion, then, is to devise a theory to explain both types offeatures (see below). In 1Thessalonians the parousia isdepicted as an imminent event that could occur at any moment, “likea thief in the night” (1Thess. 5:2), whereas in2Thessalonians the basic supposition is that the end will comenot unexpectedly but only following the series of public eventsdescribed in 2Thess. 2:3–4. The imminent tone of1Thessalonians can be compared to that of 1Corinthians(an undisputedly Pauline letter), while the attitude of2Thessalonians and its acceptance of an indefinite delay of theparousia find no obvious parallel in the other letters widelyaccepted as written by Paul, but have been described as best fittinga context in the last quarter of the first century, within the milieuof eschatological debate that gave rise to two other disputed Paulineletters, Ephesians and Colossians. Although we should not facilelyharmonize the differences between the letters, neither should weoverstate the imminence of eschatological expectation in1Thessalonians, where, as in 2Thessalonians, Paul remindshis readers that in fact they will not be surprised by the parousia(1Thess. 5:4)—although, admittedly, less apocalypticdetail is given than in 2Thessalonians. Moreover, both lettersgive ample attention to life in the period of eschatologicalanticipation (2Thess. 3:1–16), particularly to thetemptation to idleness (1Thess. 4:11–12; 5:14; 2Thess.3:7–13).
In2Thess. 2:2 the author warns against letters circulating inPaul’s name but falsely attributed to him. As proponents of thepseudonymous authorship of 2Thessalonians have pointed out,this problem is unlikely to have arisen during the lifetime of Paulhimself, as he would have been able to discredit such letters. Also,the handwritten signature at the end of the letter (2Thess.3:17 [the rest of the letter would have been dictated to a secretary,as in Rom. 16:22]) and the special emphasis placed on it (compared to1Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; and in a disputed Pauline letter, Col.4:18) have been taken as indicating an attempt to deceive, or atleast as consistent with what a pseudonymous author would have deemednecessary to pass off the letter as the work of the famous apostle.Of course, this argument depends on the fact that Paul actually didsign some of his genuine letters in this way, though 2Thess.3:17 does admittedly go beyond the other examples listed as a pleafor authenticity, even to the point of raising suspicion. On theother hand, if falsely attributed letters were being passed around inPaul’s lifetime, the extra emphasis on his personal mark wouldbe called for.
Finally,some have described a shift in tone between the two letters, fromjoyfulness to somberness. Supposing that 2Thessalonians waswritten some years after 1Thessalonians and the death of Paul,this has been taken as a reflection of eschatological disappointmentduring the interim and a readjustment of expectations to the realityof a longer-than-anticipated delay in the parousia. However, thedifference in tone, as well as the difference in theological emphasisnoted above, might simply reflect differences in the sets ofcirc*mstances that occasioned the two letters, and the tone of bothletters could be construed as coming from the mind of a singleauthor.
Relationshipbetween 1 and 2Thessalonians.Considering similarities and differences together, the proponents ofpseudonymous authorship judge the theological, linguistic, andstylistic differences to be substantive and real and to reflect botha significant lapse in time and the work of two distinct authors. Inthis view, the long list of resemblances indicates only that2Thessalonians is a rather studied imitation of1Thessalonians. If Paul wrote both letters, why would he haverepeated so much of his earlier letter in the second and done sowithin a relatively short span of time? As alternatives to the theoryof pseudonymous authorship, several proposals have been advanced toexplain this unexpected behavior, including the notions that theletters were addressed to two groups within the city of Thessalonica(Jewish and Gentile); that each letter reflects the differingauthorial contributions from the three senders of both letters (Paul,Silas, and Timothy [1Thess. 1:1; 2Thess. 1:1]); that oneof the letters was addressed privately to a restricted group withinthe community; that 2Thessalonians was written not shortlyafter 1Thessalonians but rather following a second visit toThessalonica (see Acts 20:1–2), during which developments notrecorded in Acts would have set the stage for the distinctiveemphases of the second letter; or that reversing the chronologicalpriority of the letters so that 2Thessalonians preceded1Thessalonians provides a scenario in which the Paulineauthorship of 2Thessalonians can plausibly be maintained. Atpresent, the authorship of 2Thessalonians remains a matter ofdispute among biblical scholars.
Theologicalconsiderations.Apart from the internal evidence discussed above, the theory ofpseudonymous authorship raises theological questions. How does thepossibility that Paul did not write the letter bear on the authorityof this letter as Scripture? Is the intent to deceive as to theauthorship of the letter consistent with the belief that the letterwas divinely inspired by a holy God? In terms of its history ofreception, 2Thessalonians has the highest pedigree and, asnoted above, was alluded to as early as the first part of the secondcentury. The Pauline authorship of the book and its status in thecanon do not seem to have been a matter of dispute in antiquity.Responding to critical assessments of the book’s authorship anddate in the modern era (and more broadly to assessments of other“disputed Pauline letters”), some evangelical theologiansand biblical scholars have argued that epistolary pseudepigraphy wasnot considered respectable in antiquity; that is, such a practice wasconsidered tantamount to forgery and an intent to deceive. The earlychurch would not have knowingly accepted into the canon any letterknown to have been pseudepigraphically authored and promulgated. Inlight of this reconstruction of ancient attitudes, the proposal ofpseudonymity in the case of 2Thessalonians and other supposedlyPauline letters becomes a significant theological problem.
Inaddressing this issue, it should be noted that the concept ofauthorship was and is somewhat flexible. Paul did not likely writewith his own hand any of the letters in the NT, apart from adding hissignature at the end of 1Corinthians, Galatians, and possibly2Thessalonians and Colossians. In each instance the degree towhich the scribe or amanuensis contributed to the wording or contentof each letter (see Rom. 16:22) is unclear. In the case of2Thessalonians and some other Pauline Epistles, the letteroriginated from a group of three associates: Paul, Silas, andTimothy. It is unclear to what extent Silas and Timothy should beconsidered as having made an authorial contribution to the letter.Admittedly, the theory of pseudonymous authorship of 2Thessaloniansgoes far beyond any of these cases, since, as generally articulated,it involves dating the letter to the last quarter of the firstcentury, at least ten years or so after the death of Paul. In termsof the theological problem described above, a letter authored inPaul’s name under such circ*mstances represents a qualitativelydifferent scenario than one written by associates during his lifetimeyet ultimately knowingly authorized and sent (and signed) by theapostle himself. Still, the range of meanings entailed in the conceptof “authorship” should lead to circ*mspection inevaluating the theological implications of the theory of pseudonymousauthorship. Reducing this theory to the possible element of deceptionmay risk oversimplifying and even demonizing the motivations and aimsof the pseudonymous author. (See also Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity.)
Date.As is obvious from the foregoing discussion of authorship, the dateof 2Thessalonians is bound up in the question of authorship. IfPaul wrote 2Thessalonians, it would have to have been prior tohis death in the mid-60s. FirstThessalonians was likely writtenaround AD 50, and 2Thessalonians may have been written shortlythereafter, if it was written prior to Paul’s second visit tothe region of Macedonia (Acts 20:1–2), during his time inCorinth (18:1–5) or Ephesus. A second visit to the city is notmentioned in 2Thessalonians, and in contrast to the evidence ofActs 18:5 regarding the second missionary journey of Paul, we cannotwith certainty place the three authors of 2Thessalonians (Paul,Timothy, and Silas) together at a later date. Advocates ofpseu-don-y-mous authorship usually date the letter to the lastquarter of the first century in order to allow some time for thesupposed development in eschatological expectation between the twoletters, and probably also for the collection of Paul’s lettersin later years to provide the background for the reference in2Thess. 3:17 to “all my letters.” At any rate, itshould be dated prior to the composition of Polycarp’s letterto the Philippians around AD 110.
Ifpseudonymous authorship is accepted, then two passages in the letterthat refer to events after Paul’s death may bear on a moreprecise dating of the composition. First, the reference to “God’stemple” in 2Thess. 2:4, if it refers to the temple inJerusalem, would suggest a date prior to AD 70, when that edifice wasdestroyed. Second, some have argued that the reference to therevelation of the “man of lawlessness” in 2Thess.2:3 refers to an expectation that the emperor Nero was to come backfrom the dead. This would suggest a date after Nero’s death inAD 68. Both passages can be explained in other ways: the figure ofGod’s temple continued to be invoked symbolically after AD 70,and the “man of lawlessness” is obscure enough to inspirecaution in too quickly identifying him with a historical person.
Outline
I.Introductory Greeting and Thanksgiving (1:1–12)
A.Greetings from Paul, Silas, and Timothy (1:1–2)
B.Thanksgiving (1:3–10)
C.Prayer (1:11–12)
II.The Coming of Christ (2:1–12)
A.Warnings against reports that Christ has come (2:1–2)
B.The man of lawlessness and the great apostasy must come first (2:3–7)
C.God will ensure the destruction of both through Christ (2:8–12)
III.Exhortations (2:13–3:15)
A.Thanksgiving and prayer (2:13–3:5)
B.Exhortation to avoid idleness in themselves and in others (3:6–15)
IV.Closing Prayer and Benediction (3:16–18)
Silas was a Jewish Christian, a Roman citizen (Acts16:37–38), and a leader of the Jerusalem church (15:22). He wasassigned the very important role of emissary of the Jerusalem churchto Antioch, carrying the letter related to the Jerusalem council ofActs 15. He was also a prophet (15:32). Paul chose Silas to accompanyhim on the second missionary journey (15:40–41), yet Silas wasa coequal with Paul rather than a subordinate like Timothy. Silas’spresence probably was a validation of Paul’s gospel, and Silaslikely represented the Jerusalem church in the “Pauline”missionary work.
Paulprobably refers to Silas as an apostle of Christ in 1Thess.2:6. Silas preached the gospel to the Corinthians (2Cor. 1:19)and is a named cosender of both Thessalonian letters. The same Silasis the secretary who wrote down the letter 1Peter for theapostle Peter (1Pet. 5:12–13). “Silas” is theGreek form of the Hebrew or Aramaic name “Saul”; theLatin spelling is “Silvanus” (cf. Gk. Silouanos in 2Cor.1:19; 1Thess. 1:1; 2Thess. 1:1; 1Pet. 5:12).
Silas was a Jewish Christian, a Roman citizen (Acts16:37–38), and a leader of the Jerusalem church (15:22). He wasassigned the very important role of emissary of the Jerusalem churchto Antioch, carrying the letter related to the Jerusalem council ofActs 15. He was also a prophet (15:32). Paul chose Silas to accompanyhim on the second missionary journey (15:40–41), yet Silas wasa coequal with Paul rather than a subordinate like Timothy. Silas’spresence probably was a validation of Paul’s gospel, and Silaslikely represented the Jerusalem church in the “Pauline”missionary work.
Paulprobably refers to Silas as an apostle of Christ in 1Thess.2:6. Silas preached the gospel to the Corinthians (2Cor. 1:19)and is a named cosender of both Thessalonian letters. The same Silasis the secretary who wrote down the letter 1Peter for theapostle Peter (1Pet. 5:12–13). “Silas” is theGreek form of the Hebrew or Aramaic name “Saul”; theLatin spelling is “Silvanus” (cf. Gk. Silouanos in 2Cor.1:19; 1Thess. 1:1; 2Thess. 1:1; 1Pet. 5:12).
A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples(Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) whor*ceived Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he grantedauthority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced JudasIscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the earlychurch in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43;2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as theytestified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broaderusage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection(1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabasand Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) andAndronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of hiscalling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor.1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1;Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1;2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).
One of Paul’s faithful companions who proved himself asa valuable coworker (e.g., 1Cor. 4:17; 16:10; Phil. 2:19–24).Many think that Timothy responded to Paul’s preaching duringthe first missionary journey, explaining the frequent references toTimothy as Paul’s “son” (1Cor. 4:17; Phil.2:22; 1Tim. 1:2; 2Tim. 1:2). Paul circumcised Timothybecause he had a Greek father and Jewish mother. He ministered withPaul from the second missionary journey (Acts 16) to late in Paul’slife (2Timothy), probably about twenty years. Timothy is notmentioned in much of Acts 16, an expression of Luke’s deferenceto the most prominent members of the missionary team, Paul and Silas.In Acts 19:22 Luke refers to Timothy as Paul’s “helper,”one who serves. This designation and Luke’s silence in Acts 16,however, should not be taken to mean that Timothy, who clearly has asubordinate role to Paul, had menial roles and functions.
Titlesand ministry assignments demonstrate Timothy’s important rolein Pauline mission. Paul calls Timothy a “brother”(2Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1Thess. 3:2; Philem. 1), “myco-worker” (Rom. 16:21), a “co-worker in God’sservice” (1Thess. 3:2 [textual variant: “servant ofGod”]), and “servant of Christ Jesus” with Paul(Phil. 1:1) and refers to him metaphorically as a “soldier”and “hardworking farmer” (2Tim. 2:3, 6). Paulprobably includes Timothy among the “apostles of Christ”in 1Thess. 2:6, a reference to his role as a qualifiedambassador of the gospel, not as an apostle in the technical sense.Paul sent Timothy out on ministry assignments to difficult places(e.g., Thessalonica and Corinth [see 1–2Timothy]).
Apparently,Timothy worked alongside Paul a great deal of the time and was wellrespected in many locations, because Paul identifies Timothy ascosender of six letters: 2Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians,1Thessalonians, 2Thessalonians, and Philemon. He was alsowith Paul during the writing of Romans and 1Corinthians.Mentioned as released from prison in Heb. 13:23, he was anacquaintance of the author of Hebrews.
The English word “tradition” refers both to aprocess of transmitting information from generation to generation andto the content that is thus transmitted. Tradition can be oral orwritten, and in the context of theology and biblical studies itconstitutes a form of religious authority and a means of legitimatingcustoms and beliefs. Much of the biblical data concerning tradition,which comes primarily from the NT, is connected with the verbalnotion of “passing (something) on” or, conversely,“receiving (something).” There is also a noun meaning“tradition.” The writings of the NT are neither for noragainst traditional authority perse as a form of religiousauthority, but instead display a range of attitudes toward traditionand traditions.
Jesus’Critique of Jewish Tradition
Onone occasion, Jesus sharply rebuked the Pharisees and teachers of thelaw for “setting aside the commands of God in order to observeyour own traditions” (Mark 7:9 [cf. Matt. 15:1–20]). Thecontext of this remark is a dispute between Jesus and hisinterlocutors that arose when Jesus’ disciples were observedeating with unwashed hands. According to the Pharisees (as reportedby Matthew and Mark), this requirement was a “tradition of theelders” (Mark 7:5). Jesus, however, distinguished between humantraditions and the word of God, and he accused the Pharisees ofadhering to the former even when this conflicted with observance ofthe latter. Later written rabbinic sources posited two streams ofnormative tradition, both going back to Moses and Mount Sinai: thewritten law and the oral law. This distinction, or one like it, maylie behind Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and the teachersof the law. It is important to note that Jesus’ criticism oftradition is not simply formal (i.e., opposition to traditionalauthority as such) but is substantive, in that the Pharisees wereguilty of following traditions that prevented them from observing thecommands of Moses: “You nullify the word of God by yourtradition that you have handed down. And you do many things likethat” (Mark 7:13). The memory of Jesus’ antitraditionalposture was later invoked by the opponents of Stephen, who said, “Wehave heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy thisplace and change the customs Moses handed down to us” (Acts6:14).
Sucha negative view of tradition is also evident in Col. 2:8, where theapostle warns against captivity to “hollow and deceptivephilosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elementalspiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” Thesubsequent discussion elucidates to some extent the content of thetraditions that threatened to displace the primary orientation of thebeliever to life in Christ (2:6–7); these include circumcision“performed by human hands” (2:11), rules about eating,drinking, Sabbaths, and holidays (2:16), and rules of asceticismdesigned to restrain “sensual indulgence” (2:23).Interestingly, while Jesus set up an antithesis between thetraditions of the elders and the law of Moses, Col. 2:14 appears toidentify “the charge of our legal indebtedness” with thesystem that depends on human tradition rather than on Christ.
Thesituation represented by Col. 2:8–23 (dependence on traditionversus dependence on Christ) finds a similar expression in Paul’sautobiographical account in Gal. 1:11–24. There, Paul assureshis audience that the gospel he preached “is not of humanorigin” (v.11). Invoking the vocabulary of tradition, hecontinues, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taughtit; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (vv.12–13). Paul goes on to flesh out this antithesis betweenrevelation and tradition, particularly as it applies to his apostolicclaims: he is not against religious tradition as such, since he wasformerly “zealous for the traditions of my fathers”(v.14). Nonetheless, the radically nontraditional authority ofhis gospel is underscored by the fact that he did “not consultany human being” (vv. 16–17, 19). Of course, it is notlikely that Paul would desire to undermine tradition perse, ashe would himself rely on it as a means of propagating his own gospel.Indeed, he had already warned the Galatians against departing fromthe tradition that they had accepted from him (1:9) (see thediscussion of 1Cor. 15:1–11 below).
PositiveAttitudes toward Tradition
Incontrast to Jesus’ critique of the traditions of the eldersobserved by the Pharisees, a number of NT texts present thetransmission of traditions in a positive light. Chief among these isPaul’s discussion in 1Cor. 15:1–11 of the gospel hepreached in Corinth. In this text, he speaks of his own reception ofthe tradition (“For what I received” [v.3]), histransmission of the tradition to the Corinthians (“I passed onto you as of first importance” [v.3]), and the church’sreception of the tradition (“I want to remind you of the gospel... which you received” [v.1]). What follows,the content of the tradition, is a summary of the events of the deathand resurrection of Christ according to the Scriptures and hispostresurrection manifestation to the apostles, including Paulhimself (vv. 3–7). Previously in 1Corinthians, Paul hadcommended his audience for their fidelity to tradition: “Ipraise you for ... holding to the traditions just as Ipassed them on to you” (11:2). To return to the discussion ofGal. 1 and Paul’s radical break with tradition: for Paul, therevelation of Christ stood outside the prior stream of tradition inwhich he had been raised, but subsequently it became a new traditionto be passed on and to be held with as much zeal as the old (see Acts16:4; Rom. 6:17; 1Cor. 11:23; Phil. 4:9; 1Thess. 2:13;4:1–2; 2Thess. 2:15; 3:6).
LikePaul, other NT writers appeal to traditional authority as a means ofpassing on the faith. Jude urges his readers to “contend forthe faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people”(Jude 3 [cf. 2Pet. 2:21]). Luke’s credentials as ahistorian include his faithful transmission of the account of things“just as they were handed down to us by those who from thefirst were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2).Like Paul, Luke asserts the authority of the traditional processwhile also recognizing that the transmitted tradition had ahistorical inception in recent memory (in this case, the testimony ofeyewitnesses to the life of Jesus). In other words, the appeal is notsimply to traditional teaching perse, as if “old”is intrinsically better than “new”; rather, the story ofJesus, as new as it is in history, becomes a matter of tradition onceit has occurred and been testified to by eyewitnesses.
Traditionand Protestantism
Inbroad terms, each of the three great “religions of the book”(Judaism, Christianity, Islam) recognizes theologically normativestreams of postscriptural (or extrascriptural) tradition in additionto their sacred books. During the Reformation, Protestant theologianssought to introduce a number of corrections to medieval theologyunder the banner of a return to “Scripture alone” (solaScriptura). In response, Catholic theologians asserted the authorityof Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the teaching of thechurch). All living traditions, of course, pragmatically rely onmultiple forms of religious authority. As a result of this history,“tradition” has come to stand for an illegitimate or atleast suspect form of religious authority in some strands ofProtestant thought, wherein a radical biblicism is professed incontrast to a celebration of tradition and traditions.
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.
Showing
1
to
50
of818
results
1. NURSE
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
1 Thessalonians 2:7 - "But we were gentle among you, like a nurse taking care of her children."
1 Kings 1:4 - "The maiden was very beautiful; and she became the king’s nurse and ministered to him; but the king knew her not."
The ancient definition of a nurse could be "one who looks after, tutors or guides another, as in a period of inexperience or sickness." In these ancient times, the nurse was an honorable person. It is probable that male tutors (perhaps eunuchs) were sometimes considered nurses.
Generally, though, the nurse was a woman, and she cared for the sick, the infants, or the very old. She doesn’t seem to have had any formal training, and she was usually a member of the family or a friend.
Nurses who cared for infants fed them, bathed them, dressed them, played with them, and kept the children’s quarters clean. Occasionally they were also wet nurses, when, for some reason, the mother could not suckle her child herself. After the child was weaned, only the royalty and the very wealthy employed a nurse for the child.
Nurses also served as midwives. Among the duties of the midwife was the severing of the umbilical cord, washing the child with water using salt as an antiseptic, and announcing the birth to the father.
In her function of caring for the child, we could probably consider today’s babysitter as a comparable occupation, although a childrens’ nurse would also fit. The regular hospital or private duty nurse of today has far greater training, knowledge and responsibilities than her ancient forebear, but the principle of caring for the helpless remains - and the necessity of giving love and care to the utmost.
2. A Job and A Ministry
Illustration
Michael D. Powell
Do you have a job in this church and this community . . . or do you have a ministry? There is a difference!
- If you are doing it because no one else will, it's a job. If you're doing it to serve the Lord, it's a ministry.
- If you're doing it just well enough to get by, it's a job. If you're doing it to the best of your ability, it's a ministry.
- If you'll do it only so long as it doesn't interfere with other activities, it's a job. If you're committed to staying with it even when it means letting go of other things, it's a ministry.
- If you quit because no one praised you or thanked you, it was a job. If you stay with it even though no one seems to notice, it's a ministry.
- If you do it because someone else said that it needs to be done, it's a job. If you are doing it because you are convinced it needs to be done, it's a ministry.
- It's hard to get excited about a job. It's almost impossible not to get excited about a ministry.
- If your concern is success, it's a job. If your concern is faithfulness, it's a ministry.
- People may say "well done" when you do your job. The Lord will say "well done" when you complete your ministry.
- An average church is filled with people doing jobs. A great church is filled with people involved in ministry!
- If God calls you to a ministry, for heaven's sake (literally) don't treat it like a job. If you have a job in the church, give it up and find a ministry! God doesn't want us feeling stuck in a job, but excited, fulfilled, and faithful in a specific ministry.
May God bless and empower us as disciples of Jesus Christ, called to be in the ministry of this church and community. Amen.
3. Basic Ministry
Illustration
Warren and David Wiersbe
Ten Basic Statements about ministry:
- The foundation of ministry is character.
- The nature of ministry is service.
- The motive for ministry is love.
- The measure of ministry is sacrifice.
- The authority of ministry is submission.
- The purpose of ministry is the glory of God.
- The tools of ministry are the Word and prayer.
- The privilege of ministry is growth.
- The power of ministry is the Holy Spirit.
- The model for ministry is Jesus Christ
4. What Can You Bear?
Illustration
Charles Ryrie
What is fruit? Actually the question ought to be phrased in the plural: What are fruits which a Christian can bear? The N.T. gives several answers to the question.
ONE, a developing Christian character is fruit. If the goal of the Christian life may be stated as Christlikeness, then surely every trait developed in us that reflects His character must be fruit that is very pleasing to Him. Paul describes the fruit of the Spirit in nine terms in Galatians 5:22-23, and Peter urges the development of seven accompaniments to faith in order that we might be fruitful (2 Peter 1:5-8). Two of these terms are common to both lists: love and self-control. The others are joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, virtue, knowledge, endurance, piety, and brotherly love. To show these character traits is to bear fruit in one's life.
TWO, right character will result in right conduct, and as we live a life of good works we produce fruit (Colossians 1:10). This goes hand in hand with increasing in the knowledge of God, for as we learn what pleases Him, our fruitful works become more and more conformed to that knowledge. When Paul expressed how torn he was between the two possibilities of either dying and being with Christ or living on in this life, he said that living on would mean fruitful labor or work (Philippians 1:22). This phrase could mean that (1) his work itself was fruit, or (2) fruit would result from his work. In either case, his life and work were fruit. So may ours be.
THREE, those who come to Christ through our witness are fruit. Paul longed to go to Rome to have some fruit from his ministry there (Romans 1:13), and he characterized the conversion of the household of Stephanas as the first fruits of Achaia (I Corinthians 16:15).
FOUR, we may also bear fruit with our lips by giving praise to God and thankfully confessing His name (Hebrews 13:15). In other words, our lips bear fruit when we offer thankful acknowledgement to the name of God. And this is something we should do continually.
FIVE, we bear fruit when we give money. Paul designated the collection of money for the poorer saints in Jerusalem as fruit (Romans 15:28). Too, when he thanked the Philippians for their financial support of his ministry, he said that their act of giving brought fruit to their account (Philippians 4:17, KJV).
5. Evangelical Attitude
Illustration
One day St. Francis of Assisi, invited a young monk to join him on a trip into town to preach. The young monk was so honored to get such an invitation from St. Francis that he quickly accepted. All day long he and St. Francis walked through the streets and byways, alleys and suburbs, and they rubbed shoulders with hundreds of people.
At the end of the day, the two headed back home, however, not even once had St. Francis addressed a crowd, nor had he talked to anyone about the gospel. The young monk was greatly disappointed, and he said to St. Francis, "I thought we were going into town to preach?" St. Francis responded, "My son, we have preached. We were preaching while we were walking. We were seen by many and our behavior was closely watched. It is of no use to walk anywhere to preach unless we preach everywhere as we walk!"
It's no secret that we, the church, have forgotten what it means to preach the gospel, what it means to bring to others the good news, what it means to evangelize. The word evangelism has become a dirty word in some churches, and if it isn't outright dismissed altogether, then it is relegated as a task for only those who have been ordained, or for those who are the professional speakers, who make a living giving their testimonials and asking for altar calls, or for those who are missionaries overseas.
6. The Creeping Vine
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The story is told of a small English village that had a tiny chapel whose stone walls were covered by traditional ivy. Over an arch was originally inscribed the words: we preach christ crucified. There had been a generation of godly men who did precisely that: they preached Christ crucified.
But times changed. The ivy grew and pretty soon covered the last word. The inscription now read: we preach christ. Other men came and they did preach Christ: Christ the example, Christ the humanitarian, Christ the ideal teacher.
As the years passed, the ivy continued to grow until finally the inscription read: we preach. The generation that came along then did just that: they preached economics, social gospel, book reviews, just about anything.
Man’s philosophical detours affect how the gospel is transmitted.
7. Law and Gospel
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
Martin Luther asserted that the true theologian was the one who could rightly distinguish between law and gospel. When Lutherans, including this Lutheran, work at theology we almost always work within the parameters of law and gospel. Protestant theology in general talks about three uses of the law. The first use of law is usually termed the political or civil use of law. The second use of the law, the spiritual or theological use, is the law as a mirror in which we see our lives; the law as revealer of our sins. The third use of the law is law as a guide for Christian living. There is much debate even among Lutherans whether Luther taught the third use of the law. I do not believe that he did.
The function of the civil use of law is to help humankind create a civil society. Since all people bear the law within their being, all people can work to make society a more civil place to live. Preaching on the civil use of the law would call upon people to make use of their rational intelligence in making ethical decisions in life and in working toward a civil society. There is nothing particularly Christian about the civil use of the law. It need not, therefore, occupy too much of our preaching energy. The dialogical nature of the classroom is much better suited for the important discussions of the nature of the way we might best work for an improved civil order.
The theological or spiritual use of the law was for Luther the proper use of the law. The law, that is, reveals to us our sinfulness. "What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin .... Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me (Romans 7:7, 8-10)."
The law always kills! That was Luther's dictum about the spiritual use of the law. The law always leaves me helpless, consigned to wrath, doomed to death. This is the proper use of the law and is therefore the proper use of the law in preaching. To preach the law is to render people helpless in their relationship to God. The law kills us and leaves us dead in the eyes of God.
The third use of the law is the law as a guide to Christian living. For Calvin this was the proper use of the law. This marks a radical breach among protestants. Some protestants see the law as God's revealed law for life. Clearly such a law should be preached so that people know how to live! I have already stated my conviction that Martin Luther did not teach the third use of the law in this manner. He did not believe that God revealed the law either to Israel or to Christians as a guide to living! The most radical instance of this is Luther's comments on the law as given to Moses. Luther said, "I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave commandments, but because they have been implanted in me by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature etc."1
Luther believed that the law was natural to every person alive. That's the first use of the law! For Luther, therefore, the law does not need to be revealed. If that is the case then we will need spend little time preaching the law as a guide to life. Here, too, it may be better to deal with such ethical questions about life in discussion forums under the assumption that each person brings unique resources, resources given them by God the Creator, to the discussion.
Preach the law. Preach the costly law. Preach the law that costs sinners their life and brings them to the point that they cry out for a Savior.
8. Daring Words
Illustration
Larry Powell
The Gospel according to Mark, commonly accepted to be the earliest of the synoptics, relates that Jesus began his Galilean ministry by 1. making an announcement, 2. extending an invitation, and 3. issuing a command. It would be pressing the matter entirely too far to even remotely suggest that the sequence of events was intentional, yet there is a certain familiarity about the sequence itself. As a matter of fact, the three ingredients, broadly categorized above, probably bear a striking resemblance to the sermon you will likely hear in your particular church on any given Sunday: a. the announcement of a Gospel truth; b. the exhortation, with some degree of urgency, to accomplish something in the name of Christ, and c. the invitation to respond. Intentional or not, Jesus began his ministry with a format exceptionally accommodating to Gospel preachers. However, let us take up the sequence as described by Mark.
1. The announcement. The arrest of John the baptizer apparently served as the catalyst for Jesus to reveal the messianic secret. For thirty years, he had maintained a low profile, preparing himself, shaping his perspectives, waiting - waiting for the proper time to thrust himself prominently into the midst of human affairs. At last, the moment had arrived: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel" (1:15). Daring words! He had made bold as a young man sometime earlier in his hometown synagogue to proclaim that the Scriptures had been fulfilled at his reading. The Nazarenes responded by chasing him from the community. He knew full well that there would be a more general uprising against him now by both civil and religious authorities. But there was no choice. The groundwork had been laid, preparations had been completed, John was in prison, and the alarm must continue to be sounded: "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."
2. The invitation. He would need help. Passing along the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew. Without the slightest qualification, he said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." Take notice that no questions were asked, no excuses offered, no "process planning" nor introspective "objective-setting" dialogue transpired. Mark says, "And immediately they left their nets and followed him." Going a little farther, two other brothers, James and John heard a similar, abrupt invitation to respond in like manner. How do you account for the fact that these four individuals, secure in employment, having obligations and immediate responsibilities, walked away from it all to follow one who had come upon them from behind, no questions asked? Perhaps a part of the answer is found in 1:22 where Jesus is referred to as one who spoke with "authority," and not as the scribes. This particular reflection upon the scribes, implying a certain insipidness, interests us. They possessed authority by virtue of their position. Why did they not speak with authority? Conjecture is risky business, but we have a notion that their recitations were mechanical, unfeeling, and sing-song. Devotion may have been reduced to formalized vocation, and the sharp edge of adeptness dulled by neglect. Figureheads occupy space but command little respect, whether they be scribes, ministers, bishops, church-school teachers, or members of a church staff. One must be more than simply a "figure-head." Perhaps we should each take counsel with ourselves regarding the phrase, "for he taught as one having authority, not as the scribes."
3. The command. Jesus rebuked an unclean spirit and commanded it to come out of a man in the synagogue, "and the unclean spirit ... came out of him" (1:26). Let us note the response: "They were all amazed and said ‘With authority he commands even the unclean spirits’ " (1:27).
Jesus began his public ministry with an announcement, an invitation, and a command, but most of all with authority.
9. The Parable of Wings
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The legend is told about how birds got their wings. They were first wingless creatures. Then God made wings, put them in front of the wingless birds, and said to them, “Come, take up these burdens and bear them.” The birds hesitated at first, but soon obeyed and picked up the wings in their beaks. Because the wings were heavy, the birds laid them on their shoulders. Then, to their amazement, the wings began to grow and soon had attached themselves to their bodies. The birds quickly discovered how to use these new appendages and were soon soaring through the air. What had once been a heavy burden now became an instrument that enabled the birds to soar and go where they could never go before.
The story is a parable. We are the wingless birds. The duties and tasks that seem like a burden and a trial often become the very means that God uses to lift us up and build godliness in us. God’s plan is for our tasks to be our helpers and motivators. To refuse to bend our shoulders to receive a load is to decline a new opportunity for growth.
10. What Did You Do On Earth?
Illustration
Brett Blair
The late Dr. Paul Quillian was the beloved pastor of First Methodist Church of Houston, Texas. In his fifteen years of ministry the church grew from 2500 to 6000. An effort that he called a labor of love. Not many knew that Dr. Quillian as a young man had little thought of ministry and was working in Pine Bluff Arkansas at a bottling plant when his minister paid him a call. His pastor started with the question, "How old are you?"
"Thirty."
Quillian's preacher then said, "When you stand finally before the Lord God, what will you tell him you did on earth, made red soda water?"
The young man snapped back, "And what is wrong with red soda water?"
Nothing, my son, except you happen to be endowed with great talents and abilities which I cherish for God and the Christian ministry."
Consequently, the young man went back to school and prepared for the preaching ministry. He itinerated in Arkansas. Finally he was called to the First Church in Houston. He became a wonderful leader for Christ because someone recognized the gifts and talents within him and took a few minutes out of the day to tell him so.
11. Gospel Grandmothers
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
United Church has a tradition. They were known for supporting their pastors very well. Any pastor who has ever served at United will verify the truth of this tradition. Pastors, for example, consider it a privilege to serve in this congregation deep in the heart of Texas. Pastor Mike Snyder surely did. Pastor Mike, as everyone called him, had had a kind of love affair with this congregation throughout his nine years of service at United. The feeling was mutual. The people of United felt uniquely blessed by him as well.
It was not much of a surprise, therefore, when the church board at United decided to hold a special evening meeting to honor and celebrate the ministry of Pastor Mike Snyder. Someone on the board had found out that this year was the 25th anniversary of Pastor Snyder's ordination. Everyone agreed immediately that there should be a party, a Texas-style party to honor their pastor's 25 years of ordained ministry. And so it was.
The party for Pastor Snyder's anniversary was held on a hot Texas summer night. Just about the whole congregation turned out for it. Choirs sang their favorite numbers. The younger children recited verses of Bible stories they had learned. One of the members of the high school youth group spoke on their behalf. Many adults spoke as well. There was a representative of the women's organization, the men's club, the church board and just about every other group at United.
In their speeches people took care not to paint Pastor Snyder as some kind of perfect saint. It wasn't that Pastor Snyder's ministry with them was without fault. In fact, they knew his faults pretty well. There were some well-timed jokes concerning the fact that Pastor Snyder often neglected his own family in order to get all the ministry done at United. "You have to find more time for your own family," said the woman from the women's organization. Other jokes teased Pastor Snyder about the short fuse on his temper. They reminded him gently to put a lid on it!
And so the party went on. Words of thanksgiving and praise were spoken. So were words of caution and concern. And now it was time for Pastor Snyder's response. Jimmie Jones, chair of the church board, invited the pastor to the podium. "One of the things you've done best among us," said Jimmie, "is to help bring faith to life. We'd like to know who helped you. Who helped you to faith, Pastor Mike?"
"My grandmother," said Pastor Snyder without hesitation. "I believe that my grandmother had a tremendous shaping power over my life of faith even though I never knew her. She died eight years before I was born. But I heard the stories. I heard stories of how she headed up the Sunday school until she died. I heard stories of how she was the pioneer in seeing to it that the English language was introduced into her congregation of immigrants. I heard many stories of her faith."
"I can't explain it but I have always felt that my call to the ministry was a call to fulfill my grandmother's legacy. In some mysterious way I feel that her vision of Christian service has been passed along to me. She is, in a very special way, my 'gospel grandmother.' I'll bet many people here tonight can name a 'gospel grandmother' who has helped to lead you to faith. I thank God, we should all thank God, for our grandmothers in the faith!"
12. Proclaim the Gospel
Illustration
Karl Barth
The life of the one holy Universal Church is determined by the fact that it is the fulfillment of the service as ambassador enjoined upon it.
Where the life of the Church is exhausted in self-serving, it smacks of death; the decisive thing has been forgotten, that this whole life is lived only in the exercise of what we called the Church's service as ambassador, proclamation, kerygma. A Church that recognizes its commission will neither desire nor be able to petrify in any of its functions, to be the Church for its own sake. There is the "Christ-believing group"; but this group is sent out: "Go and preach the gospel!" It does not say, "Go and celebrate services!" "Go and edify yourselves with the sermon!" "Go and celebrate the Sacraments!" "Go and present yourselves in a liturgy, which perhaps repeats the heavenly liturgy!" "Go and devise a theology which may gloriously unfold like the Summa of St. Thomas!" Of course, there is nothing to forbid all this; there may exist very good cause to do it all; but nothing, nothing at all for its own sake! In it all the one thing must prevail: "Proclaim the gospel to every creature!" The Church runs like a herald to deliver the message. It is not a snail that carries its little house on its back and is so well off in it that only now and then it sticks out its feelers and then thinks that the "claim of publicity" has been satisfied. No, the Church lives by its commission as herald, it is la compagnie de Dieu.
Where the Church is living, it must ask itself whether it is serving this commission or whether it is a purpose in itself. If the second is the case, then as a rule it begins to smack of the "sacred," to affect piety, to play the priest and to mumble. Anyone with a keen nose will smell it and find it dreadful! Christianity is not "sacred"; rather there breathes in it the fresh air of the Spirit. Otherwise it is not Christianity. For it is an out-and-out "worldly" thing open to all humanity: "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to every creature."
13. PREACHER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Mark 1:14 - "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God,"
Preaching, the proclamation of a divine message, and the regular instruction of the converted in the doctrines and duties of the faith, is as old as the human family. Noah is referred to as "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5). This is not a distinctly Judaistic or Christian concept; the Mohammedans practice it freely, and it is not unknown among the Buddhists. It has its roots in the activity of the Hebrew prophets and scribes, the former representing the broader appeal, the latter the edification of the faithful, and in the ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles, where again we have both the evangelical invitation and the teaching of truth and duty. Whichever is emphasized in preaching, the preacher is one who believes himself to be the ambassador of God, charged with a message which it is his duty to deliver.
From the Acts of the Apostles we gather something of the methods adopted by St. Peter and St. Paul, and these we may believe were more or less general for the preachers of the Primitive Church. The Apostles who had known the Lord would naturally recall the facts of his life, and the story of his words and works would form a great deal of their preaching. It is not until we come to Origen (d. 254) that we find preaching as an explanation and application of definite texts, a usage that Christianity adopted from Greek rhetoricians.
The New Testament writers drew a definite distinction between preaching and teaching. Preaching is the proclamation of the gospel to men who have not yet heard it. Teaching is an instruction or exhortation on various aspects of Chrisitan life and thought addressed to a community already established in the faith.
Today, of course, the preacher or minister or pastor of a congregation is usually called upon to perform both functions. But the preaching mission of the church is still its prime function and should be considered so.
See HERALD
14. BE A DARKNESS DISPELLER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
As you got out of bed this morning, did you feel like you belonged to a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God? And tomorrow morning, as the daily grind begins again, will you be thinking as you brush the old ivories, "What ways am I going to declare God’s wonderful deeds today?" Will any of us plot how we might upset the devil, the prince of terrorists? How many of us will let the light of Christ shine through us and be among the darkness dispellers? Will any of us seek to be the light of Christ in a darkening world?
Reading the Bible, it becomes evident that Christianity is not a solo proposition. Christianity comes to us through Christian community. Without a relation to the community or church, our individual Christianity is weakened and incomplete. The church is Christ’s body on earth today. The light of Christ shines in the world through each of us as we take seriously that we are a chosen people belonging to God.
There is no disembodied Christianity. The Lord calls us to relate to him in the community of the church with all of its warts and imperfections. Christianity is a social faith, a community of fellow believers. Jesus continues to build his church upon our confession of faith that he was the one promised by the Father to die and pay the penalty of our sinfulness and to defeat death and the grave by rising again. No individual makes the church. Saint Paul speaks of members of the body of Christ; members mean absolutely nothing when they are severed from the body. Every functioning, contributing, participating member is important to the good of our witness.
Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church. We are each to be a living stone cemented to the cornerstone and to one another. Each of us has a divine destiny and a place in the drama of divine redemption. We have been baptized into a high vocation. We were once nobody’s people, destined to hell. We are now God’s people, called to serve the Lord, on our way to heaven. We have gone from rags to riches, from a pig sty to a royal palace.
We are God’s own people. We belong to God, saved from hell by the sacrifice of Christ. We are, therefore, called to produce - produce the light of Christ in our words and deeds. We are called by Christ to servanthood, to sacrifice, into ministry. Such ministry is fed and coordinated in the local parish. If each Christian took seriously the Lord’s Word, our ministry and effectiveness as darkness dispellers would double, perhaps even triple. With the help of God, let’s turn on our lights ... full strength.
15. Speaking for the Lord
Illustration
James Packer
Paul considered himself Christ's ambassador. What is an ambassador? He is an authorized representative of a sovereign. He speaks not in his own name but on behalf of the ruler whose deputy he is, and his whole duty and responsibility is to interpret that ruler's mind faithfully to those to whom he is sent.
Paul used this "ambassador" image twice both in connection with his evangelistic work. Pray for me, he wrote from prison, "that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak" (Eph. 6:18-20). He wrote also that God "gave us the ministry of reconciliation...So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
Paul called himself an ambassador because he knew that when he proclaimed the gospel facts and promises and urged sinners to receive the reconciliation effected at Calvary, he was declaring Christ's message to the world. The figure of ambassadorship highlights the authority Paul had, as representing his Lord, as long as he remained faithful to the terms of his commission and said neither less nor more than he had been given to say.
16. The Fall of Many
Illustration
Maurice A. Fetty
It has been said by many that if you preach the gospel, people will beat a path to your door to hear you. I don't think that is necessarily so. Big crowds are not necessarily a measure of whether the gospel is being preached. Paul surely preached the gospel more effectively than most, and he did not always attract big crowds. Often it was the opposite, working mostly with small groups. While Jesus had his share of multitudes, he also had large numbers who turned away from him when they learned what discipleship was all about.
17. Christ the King Sunday
Illustration
Theodore F. Schneider
There was a sense of anxiety as our seminary classmates gathered that day. To a person they had been surprised when the professor announced that there would be a final exam. Everyone was asking, "How can you have a final exam in preaching?" How could one prepare? What sort of questions might be asked? Throughout the year there had been lectures on sermon preparation and style, but mostly it had been a course of practice and critique.
Finally, the professor, who was himself a splendid and engaging preacher, strode into the room and a quiet fell. The familiar blue books were distributed.
"Gentlemen," he began, "you may use your Bibles for this exam. You have three hours. There is just one question and it has three parts. Here it is: You have one last sermon to preach in your ministry. It's your last best shot. Choose your text and theme, explain why you have chosen them, and give a full, detailed outline for the development of that sermon." That morning and that question have left lasting marks upon this preacher's life and his ministry!
Today brings us that one last shot in this church year. Today the church brings to conclusion all that has been revealed and celebrated in the gospel story of God's work for our salvation since that story began with Advent's hope a year ago. Today it must come together for us into one concluding proclamation about Jesus Christ who is "King of kings and Lord of lords." And today we must address that ultimate question about Christ's lordship in our lives and in our world.
18. The Unthinkable Shame
Illustration
Phillip Yancy
In a memoir of the years before World War II, Pierre Van Paassen tells of an act of humiliation by Nazi storm troopers who had seized an elderly Jewish rabbi and dragged him to headquarters.
In the far end of the same room, two colleagues were beating another Jew to death, but the captors of the rabbi decided to have some fun with him. They stripped him naked and commanded that he preach the sermon he had prepared for the coming Sabbath in the synagogue. The rabbi asked if he could wear his yarmulke, and the Nazis, grinning, agreed. It added to the joke. The trembling rabbi proceeded to deliver in a raspy voice his sermon on what it means to walk humbly before God, all the while being poked and prodded by the hooting Nazi, and all the while hearing the last cries of his neighbor at the end of the room.
When you read the gospel accounts of the imprisonment, torture, and execution of Jesus, it might make you think of that naked rabbi standing humiliated in a police station. It's hard to fathom the indignity, the SHAME endured by God's Son on earth, stripped naked, flogged, spat on, struck in the face, garland with thorns.
Neither could Peter and that is why he protest so. That the Messiah, whom he has now recognized, should suffer at the hands of the Roman enemies on a cruel and shameful cross was unthinkable.
19. Anyone Can Have a Fruitful Ministry
Illustration
Our Daily Bread
John Warr, an 18th-century apprentice shoemaker, was determined to be a faithful witness for Christ. Another apprentice by the name of William was hired, and John repeatedly talked to him about spiritual things, but the new worker didn't want to be bothered. Then one day he was caught exchanging a counterfeit shilling for a good one. In his guilt and humiliation he asked John for help and prayer. Through the faithful witness of John Warr, that man put his faith in Christ and developed into a committed disciple.
The young apprentice was William Carey, who later became a remarkably fruitful missionary to India. Carey's life and ministry had a tremendous influence on the cause of worldwide gospel outreach in modern times.
Jesus said in John 15:8, "By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit." This could be discouraging to Christians who can't preach, sing, teach, or go to the mission field. They might see themselves as stuck in a situation that makes fruitful service impossible.
If that's how you feel, then take courage from the example of John Warr. His impact on a co-worker brought glory to God and untold blessing to multitudes of people around the world.
20. Who Is a Missionary?
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
For a helpful look at what or who a missionary is or should be, I recommend A Hitchhiker's Guide to Missions by Ada Lum (InterVarsity Press, 1984). Lum gives some helpful definitions and analysis of just what the missionary enterprise is all about. "A missionary is a prepared disciple whom God sends into the world with His resources to make disciples for His kingdom." She suggests six biblical images:
1. A Witness—Acts 1:8; Isaiah 43:10-12
2. An Evangelist—Luke 2:10-11; Acts 11:19-21
3. A Pioneer—Hebrews 12:2; Acts 20:22-24
4. A Herald—1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11, 4:2
5. An Ambassador—2 Corinthians 5:20; Ephesians 6: 19-20
6. A Servant—1 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:24
Lum points out similarities between Jesus and Paul in Preparation and in Ministry.
Similar Preparation: They had a deep sense of commission, they were well trained by life, they were full of the Spirit and they each had the heart of a servant.
Similar Ministry: Their message was reconciliation to God, they had a worldwide vision, they had a strategy, they focused on basic ministries, they trained disciple makers to carry on the work, they were men of perseverance, they were part of a team, they were men of compassion, and they were men of passion.
21. A New Star
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
In October, 1989, a new star was added to the 1900 stars on the famed sidewalk on Hollywood Boulevard. The new star was placed near the stars of Julie Andrews and Wayne Newton. The new star, as curious as it seems, was evangelist Billy Graham, who has preached the gospel to more than 100 million people around the world. Forty years ago he refused to have his name on a star, but he reconsidered it in 1989. He said, "I hope it will identify me with the gospel that I preach." At the unveiling he added, "We should put our eyes on the star, which is the Lord."
22. Application Is Almost Everything
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
A soap manufacturer and a pastor were walking together down a street in a large city. The soap manufacturer casually said, "The gospel you preach hasn't done much good, has it? Just observe. There is still a lot of wickedness in the world, and a lot of wicked people, too!" The pastor made no reply until they passed a dirty little child making mud pies in the gutter. Seizing the opportunity, the pastor said, "I see that soap hasn't done much good in the world; for there is much dirt, and many dirty people around." The soap manufacturer replied, "Oh, well, soap is only useful when it is applied." And the pastor said, "Exactly, so it is with the gospel."
23. Excuses for Stinginess
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
Horace Bushnell made this list of those excused from benevolence giving:
Those who believe "every man for himself."
Those who believe that Christ made a mistake when he said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel.”
Those who regret that missionaries ever came to our ancestors.
Those who believe that the gospel will not save anybody.
Those who want no share in the final victory.
Those who believe they are not accountable to anybody for the trust they enjoy.
Those who are prepared to accept the final sentence. "Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of these, you did not to me."
24. Carried Any Donkeys Lately?
Illustration
Source Unknown
Ther's a fable of an old man whose grandson rode a donkey while they were traveling from one city to another. The man heardpeople say, “Would you look at that old man suffering on his feet while that strong young boy is totally capable of walking.”
So then the old man rode the donkey while the boy walked. And he heard some people say, “Would you look at that, a healthy man making the poor young boy suffer. Can you believe it?”
So the man and the boy both rode the donkey, and they heard some people say, “Would you look at those heavy brutes making that poor donkey suffer.” So they both got off and walked, until they heard some people say, “Would you look at the waste—a perfectly good donkey not being used.”
Finally, the scene shifts and we see the boy walking and the old man carrying the donkey. No matter what you do, someone will always criticize it.
We smile, but this story makes a good point: We can't please everybody, and if we try we end up carrying a heavy burden. Well-meaning Christians may offer us advice, and much of it is valuable. But when we try to do everything other believers want us to do, we can easily become frustrated and confused . That's why we need to remember that the One we must please above all others is Christ. And we do that by obeying God's Word. Carried any donkeys lately? You don't have to if you're trying to please Jesus.
25. Let the Gospel Run Its Course
Illustration
Edward F. Markquart
For me, one of the classic interpretations of this Biblical passage about the seed growing automatically (Mark 4:26) was written by Martin Luther when he said about this text: "After I preach my sermon on Sunday, when I return home, I drink my little glass of Wittenberg beer and I just let the gospel run its course." I like that. Luther said that after he pounded on the pulpit and expounded the gospel, he would go home and pull out the Sunday newspaper, and pull out his glass of warm Wittenberg beer and start to drink it and enjoy the afternoon. Luther knew that the power of his sermon was not based on the power of his theological acuity. He knew that the power of his sermon was not based on his eloquence or his abilities. He knew that the power of the sermon would have no effect whatsoever unless the very Word of God got into a person's heart. Luther knew that he couldn't do that. It was the Holy Spirit who did that. Luther keenly understood the power of the Word.
26. The Poverty in the Christmas Story
Illustration
Edward F. Markquart
The gospel story for today could be entitled, "The Original Christmas Pageant." In both the first two chapters of Luke and in the rest of the gospel, we hear of God's special concern for the poor. Both in the whole gospel of Luke and in the first two chapters of prelude, there is a preoccupation with those who live in poverty. I would like to suggest to you that the forgotten element of Luke's original Christmas pageant is the theme of poverty and poor people themselves. The poverty of the Christmas story is often the forgotten element.
Dr. Walter Pilgrim's book about the gospel of Luke is entitled, GOOD NEWS FOR THE POOR. This professor, who is from Pacific Lutheran University and often teaches at our congregation, reminds us that ALL of the characters from Luke's original Christmas pageant were poor people. ALL of them! The story about the three wise men with their gold, frankincense and myrrh is not a story from the gospel of Luke but from the book of Matthew. For Luke, ALL the characters in his Christmas play are poor people.
27. As the Twig Is Bent
Illustration
Larry Powell
Jesus satas a child with other Jewish children on the dirt floor of the synagogue in Nazareth to receive instruction from the rabbi. Paul studied at the feet of Gamaliel. John Wesley received instruction at his mother’s knee and later received formal training from some of the most outstanding scholars of his time. Instruction served them, as it serves us, as a strong potion. We are not speaking of education in general here, though the same claim may be made for it. Some things can be learned on one’s own and achieved from personal experience apart from instruction. The focus here is upon that part of our knowledge which has come to us through intentional instruction. There are simply some things which we must be told and have translated or explained.
We are impressed that Jesus was commonly referred to as "Teacher." With all due respect to the group-dynamics people, Jesus did not arrange his hearers in a circle, arm himself with magic markers and newsprint, and ask, "All right, what do you want to talk about today?" To be sure, that is a legitimate technique for group sharing which indeed maximizes general participation, but Jesus chose to instruct. There were some things he had to tell which his listeners did not always know to ask, and we marvel not only at what he told, but also at the never-to-be-forgotten manner in which he told it. His instruction gathered meaning from the ordinary: yeast, birds, lilies, foxes, lost coins, sheep, patches on garments, bridegrooms, vineyards, seed, and the like. Even a major instruction in the closing hours of his ministry, the Last Supper, involved two articles which he knew would be on every table as a daily reminder of the lesson: bread and wine.
The Psalmist too, was given to putting his material in a manner easily remembered. For example, Psalm 119 cleverly arranges its lesson in acrostic form. The 176 verses contain 72 stanzas. Each stanza begins with a sequential letter of the Hebrew alphabet until all 22 letters are used. Simply stated, anyone who could remember the alphabet could memorize the Psalm.
Instruction informs. Information annihilates ignorance. Someone has claimed that we live in a day when we are faced with "third generation biblical illiterates." What a challenge to those of us who are called to instruct. Moreover, the popular quip, "You can believe anything and belong to such-and-such church" would seem to indicate that instruction is either not being laid out or is not being retained.
Instruction prepares. Alexander Pope put it simply: "Just as the twig is bent, the tree’s inclined."
Instruction serves. Tools for the journey and knowledge for the doing! Read 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and reflect on how religious instruction is profitable to those who aspire to follow the way of Christ. How is the Word of God, as the Psalmist proclaims, a "lamp to our feet and a light to our paths"?
28. Good News - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
The story is told of a Franciscan monk in Australia was assigned to be the guide and "gofer" to Mother Teresa when she visited New South Wales. Thrilled and excited at the prospect of being so close to this great woman, he dreamed of how much he would learn from her and what they would talk about. But during her visit, he became frustrated. Although he was constantly near her, the friar never had the opportunity to say one word to Mother Teresa. There were always other people for her to meet.
Finally, her tour was over, and she was due to fly to New Guinea. In desperation, the Franciscan friar spoke to Mother Teresa: If I pay my own fare to New Guinea, can I sit next to you on the plane so I can talk to you and learn from you? Mother Teresa looked at him. You have enough money to pay airfare to New Guinea? she asked.
Yes, he replied eagerly. “Then give that money to the poor,” she said. “You'll learn more from that than anything I can tell you.” Mother Teresa understood that Jesus’ ministry was to the poor and she made it hers as well. She knew that they more than anyone else needed good news.
On a Saturday morning, in Nazareth, the town gathered in the synagogue to listen to Jesus read and teach. It was no big surprise. He was well known in the area; it was his hometown. He was raised there. They wanted to learn from him. So when he read from the Isaiah scroll, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor” everyone understood these words to be the words of Isaiah. It is how that prophet from long ago defined his ministry.
When Jesus finished that reading he handed the scroll to the attendant and sat down. In that day you sat in the Moses Seat to teach to the people. Today preachers stand in a pulpit. So all eyes were on Jesus, waiting for him to begin his teaching. What would he say about this great prophet Isaiah? Would he emphasis the bad news? Israel had sinned and would be taken into captivity by the Babylonians. Or would he emphasis the good news? One day God would restore his people and bring them back from captivity. It was Israel’s ancient history but it still spoke volumes.
Now here’s the wonderful twist, the thing that catches everyone off guard that Saturday morning in Nazareth. Jesus does neither. He doesn’t emphasize those things past. He focuses on the present. He doesn’t lift up Isaiah as the great role model; Jesus lifts up himself. This is the pertinent point. It’s what upsets everybody at the synagogue. It’s why everybody was furious with him and drove him out of town. They were going to kill him. He dared to say that these great words of Isaiah were really about himself. “Today,” he said, “this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Why does Jesus describe himself as the new Isaiah? How is it that he is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words? Let’s take a look at…
1. The captivity and restoration of Israel under Isaiah’s ministry.
2. The captivity of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
3. The restoration of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
29. Ministry Everywhere
Illustration
King Duncan
Let me tell you about a man named Paige Patterson. Paige's style of ministry and even his theology may not exactly fit ours, but Paige cares about people. Paige ministered to troubled youth in ways that no one else did. He would go to places where youth were, like bars, nightclubs and the streets. At first the people in his church were in shock. This was a new experience and a new ministry for them. But soon they got over their shock and got on board and began a campus ministry to reach out to youth. And the youth responded positively: they liked having people from the church meet them where they were without getting obnoxious.
One night Paige was asked to leave a nightclub because, the manager told him, he was running off his business. Paige says it was no big deal. Anyway, as he stepped out onto the front porch, Paige noticed a big man sitting there with a can of beer in his hand, who was a bouncer for the club. "Looks like it's been a rough night," Paige said casually. The big man nodded and said it indeed had been.
"I don't want to offend you," Paige told him, "but if you died where you're sitting right now, would you be in heaven or hell?" The man instantly crushed the can he was holding, and beer shot everywhere. "I can't believe you asked that question," he said in disbelief. "I was just sitting here thinking how I was going to kill myself when I got home."
"There's no reason to do that," Paige told him, "nothing's that bad." Then Paige began to witness to the man about his faith in Jesus Christ. He told the man that God still loved him. And the two men talked for the next thirty minutes. The next Sunday this man went to church and committed his life to Jesus Christ.
Somehow I can see Jesus doing that kind of ministry if he were with us here physically today. Oh, not just in night clubs. But in offices and in living rooms and at Little League ball games - any place he could be with and get to know people. Jesus cares about people. That means he cares about you and me. Don't be put off by the formality of "church." Look beyond the robes and rituals. Look to a risen Savior who gave his life for only one purpose: people.
Note: Paige Patterson, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, and one timepresident of the Southern Baptist Convention, wasbeen removed in 2018 from his position as president of a Texas seminary (SBTS) following allegations that he made abusive and demeaning comments to women. He was keptas a president emeritus. The events in the bar story above happened in Patterson's younger years of ministry.
30. Preaching on Prayers
Illustration
Staff
How important is faithfulness in prayer? Dr. Wilbur Chapman often told of his experience when, as a young man, he went to become pastor of a church in Philadelphia. After his first sermon, an old gentleman said to him, "You're pretty young to be pastor of this church. But you preach the Gospel, and I'm going to help you all I can."
Dr. Chapman thought, "Here's a crank." But the man continued: "I'm going to pray for you that you may have the Holy Spirit's power upon you. Two others have covenanted to join with me in prayer for you."
Dr. Chapman said, "I didn't feel so bad when I learned he was going to pray for me. The 3 became 10, the 10 became 20, and 20 became 50, the 50 became 200 who met before every service to pray that the Holy Spirit might come upon me. I always went into my pulpit feeling that I would have the anointing in answer to the prayers of those who had faithfully prayed for me. It was a joy to preach! The result was that we received 1,100 into our church by conversion in three years, 600 of whom were men. It was the fruit of the Holy spirit in answer to prayer!"
31. Members of a Family
Illustration
John M. Braaten
The genius of God's plan is obvious. If we recognize that we are all members of the same family, if we acknowledge that God desires to hold us in a single peace then, ideally, we will stop fighting with each other and destroying one another and instead begin standing with one another and working together to bring people to Christ and to become an answer to prayer for those who cry out to God for help.
However, if your family is like my family, your day-today operation is not marked with constant good will and cooperation. Parents can disagree with each other, or the children, or the youngsters with each other. There are so many possibilities for dissension - goals will vary, opinions often differ and wills may clash. I think the reason for the popularity of the television cartoon "The Simpsons" is that it lays bare some of the battles which are fought in the arenas of many homes. Apparently there is some comfort in knowing that others experience problems similar to one's own. But if love is at the heart of our relationships, and forgiveness is liberally applied, there is still a family unity and loyalty which acts like a glue – unity holds family members together even when they are apart and loyalty brings them together again at times of crisis or joyful celebration.
The church as the family of God has characteristics similar to other family units but with infinitely more possibilities for disagreement and dissension. It is no wonder then that Paul saw the primary task of the church as one of reconciliation: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
32. Believing in Jesus: Erasing Boundaries
Illustration
David Reynolds
If we believe in Jesus, we know the boundaries are erased inside and out, life's for us all. Fred Craddock tells the story of a missionary sent to preach the gospel in India near the end of World War II. After many months the time came for a furlough back home. His church wired him the money to book passage on a steamer but when he got to the port city he discovered a boat load of Jews had just been allowed to land temporarily. These were the days when European Jews were sailing all over the world literally looking for a place to live, and these particular Jews were staying in attics and warehouses and basem*nts all over that port city.
It happened to be Christmas, and on Christmas morning, this missionary went to one of the attics where scores of Jews were staying. He walked in and said, "Merry Christmas." The people looked at him like he was crazy and responded, "We're Jews." "I know that," said the missionary, "What would you like for Christmas?" In utter amazement the Jews responded, "Why we'd like pastries, good pastries like the ones we used to have in Germany." So the missionary went out and used the money for his ticket home to buy pastries for all the Jews he could find staying in the port. Of course, then he had to wire home asking for more money to book his passage back to the States.
As you might expect, his superiors wired back asking what happened to the money they had already sent. He wired that he had used it to buy Christmas pastries for some Jews. His superiors wired back, "Why did you do that? They don't even believe in Jesus." He wired back: "Yes, but I do."
33. The Gospel Has Been Proclaimed
Illustration
Steven Molin
A first year student in a Catholic seminary was told by the dean that he should plan to preach the sermon in chapel the following day. He had never preached a sermon before, he was nervous and afraid, and he stayed up all night, but in the morning, he didn't have a sermon. He stood in the pulpit, looked out at his classmates and said "Do you know what I am going to say?" All of them shook their heads "no" and he said "Neither do I. The service has ended. Go in peace."
The dean was not happy. "I'll give you another chance tomorrow, and you had better have a sermon." Again he stayed up all night; and again he couldn't come up with a sermon. Next morning, he stood in the pulpit and asked "Do you know what I am going to say?" The students all nodded their heads "yes." "Then there is no reason to tell you" he said. "The service has ended. Go in peace."
Now the dean was angry. "I'll give you one more chance; if you don't have a sermon tomorrow, you will be asked to leave the seminary." Again, no sermon came. He stood in the pulpit the next day and asked "Do you know what I am going to say?" Half of the students nodded "yes" and the other half shook their heads "no." The student preacher then announced "Those who know, tell those who don't know. The service has ended. Go in peace."
The seminary dean walked over to the student, put his arm over the student's shoulders, and said "Those who know, tell those who don't know. Today, the gospel has been proclaimed."
34. The Lord Came to Change Us
Illustration
Will Willimon
Unfortunately, we have psychologized the gospel, turned it into a feeling, transformed the Kingdom of God into a mood. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that the Messiah whom we await is the great cosmic affirmer of everything we hold dear and of all our illusions. But Hans Küng reminds us:
"We are to preach metanoia. We must entice people from the world to God. We are not to shut ourselves off from the world in a spirit of asceticism, but to live in the everyday world inspired by the radical obedience that is demanded by the love of God. The Church must be reformed again and again, converted again and again in each day in order that it may fulfill its task."
So this Sunday, in the midst of our growing joy at the advent of God into our world, let us pause to listen to this harsh prophet standing knee-deep in cold Jordan water. Hear his judging words, no matter where they strike and hurt. Remember -- our Lord comes not only to save us but also to change us, to convert these stones into children. This Lord comes as the one who will turn everything upside-down, even us, until all creation is under his rule.
Note: Metanoia means change, repentance.
35. JOYS OF DISCIPLESHIP
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Coming home late one rainy evening, I was short on patience and a bit uptight. It was the pressures of ministry with too much to do and too little time to do it. That evening, I had planned to write a sermon on the joys of discipleship! As I began, I realized I needed a better frame of mind ... more joy in my own discipleship.
As I reflected on the topic, I was reminded that joy is neither something to be tied into weather, nor tied into a work schedule. There is no such thing as more joy-less work, more work-less joy. Christian joy should not be affected by wages: large raise - great joy, no raise - no joy. Joy in discipleship is something that transcends the ups and downs of living. It must be bigger than the shifting sands of existence.
Turning to the Bible, we see what it has to say about joy and its source. It says that there is fullness of joy in the presence of God. Real joy comes from moving into the presence of God and abiding in the love of Christ. When the spirit of God is alive in us, one of the blessings the spirit brings to us is joy.
A Japanese lady asked the headmistress of a mission school, "Do you take only beautiful girls in your school?"
"Why, no, we welcome all girls," was the reply.
"But I’ve noticed that all your girls are beautiful."
"Well," said the missionary, "we teach them to love our Savior Jesus Christ, and he gives them a look of beauty."
"I am a Buddhist, and I do not desire my daughter to become a Christian, yet I should like her to attend your school to get that look on her face."
Recently a distinguished Britisher said that he visited an American home that seemed to have everything - two cars in the garage, a beautiful living room with expensive furniture, a color TV set, a kitchen filled with the latest gadgets, and a large pool and beautiful patio. However, the lady of the house was reading a book entitled, How to Be Happy.
Happiness is to know the Savior. Joy in discipleship is not attachment to things but is attachment to Jesus. This is why Paul and Silas, after being beaten and thrown into prison, could pray and sing hymns to God and thereby witness to the prisoners who listened to them. Joy is a sign of the presence of God in one’s life. To be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ is to experience a deeper level of joy.
Christianity is a religion of joy and excitement. There is nothing unhappy about it. It is for people who want the joy that comes from being involved in something worthwhile. Once you taste the joys of discipleship, you’ll notice that your life will have more meaning. You will even want to return for a second helping.
36. The Pastor's Parking Space
Illustration
Richard Patt
Maybe you've heard the humorous story about the pastor who was having difficulty with his assigned parking space on the church parking lot. People parked in his spot whenever they pleased, even though there was a sign that clearly said, "This space reserved." He thought the sign needed to be clearer, so he had a different sign made, which read, "Reserved for Pastor Only." Still people ignored it and parked in his space whenever they felt like it. "Maybe the sign should be more forceful," he thought. So he devised a more intimidating one, which announced, "Thou shalt not park here." That sign didn't make any difference either. Finally, he hit upon the words that worked; in fact, nobody ever took his parking place again. The sign read, "The one who parks here preaches the sermon on Sunday morning!"
I tell you this story because most of you would probably hedge at the prospect of such a ministry: preaching the sermon on a Sunday morning. You would probably feel uncomfortable about doing that because of a lack of experience and training. But what, then, is your ministry? The Gospel reading here, as well as the other two readings selected for this Sunday, set before us a vision of a common ministry that all of us can be a part of. I would call it something like "a ministry of hospitality."
37. The Call to Confession
Illustration
King Duncan
My goal today isn't to make you feel guilty. Some pastors do that. They flog their congregations with guilt and then present the Gospel as a form of catharsis. It's like the story of a Roman Catholic priest who had been at his church for years and was beloved by his parishioners except for what most of them considered one failing. He was a great believer in the sacrament of confession, and he never passed up an opportunity to remind his flock of that fact. No matter what Sunday it was, Christmas, Easter or any Sunday in between the good father would somehow weave something into his sermon about the necessity of his people being present in the confessional booth on Saturday afternoon.
Finally, they got so tired of hearing this that a delegation was sent to the rectory. There was the usual exchange of pleasantries, then the delegation's spokesman explained to the priest that they, too, believed that confession was an essential part of the Christian life, but that perhaps he, as their pastor, might also want to give consideration to other topics about which to preach.
The priest admitted that maybe he'd laid it on a little thick, and he vowed to change. The next Sunday, the parish celebrated the annual festival of its patron saint, Saint Joseph. It was a big event, and the theme of the Sunday mass was to be fatherhood, as Joseph was the father of Jesus. The priest prepared what he thought was a particularly good sermon on the subject. But when he went up into the pulpit, and surveyed the packed house, something came over him. He set his homily aside and instead he began like this, "Today is the Feast of our blessed Saint Joseph. St. Joseph, as you know, was a carpenter, and during his holy life, he doubtless built a few confessional booths, which reminds me . . ."
My goal is not to make you feel guilty, but as your pastor and your friend, is there some wrongdoing in your past that you've never been honest about with yourself or with God? Many people never really acknowledge that they have done wrong, so they never really feel the forgiveness of God in their hearts.
38. If I Live To Be A Hundred
Illustration
John E. Sumwalt
Sam Duncan lay in the semi-darkness of his nursing home room performing the only two activities of which he still considered himself capable: watching and waiting. Although his eyesight was dim, he could still make out the steady brightening of the light of dawn through the window next to his bed. And although his hearing was too far gone to catch the rumble of the medicine cart, as it worked its way up the hall toward his room, he could sense that the time for his morning pills was near. He waited for the nurse to push open the door and greet him and his roommate Arthur, who was still snoring loudly in the bed next to his.
Most of the accepted measures of quality of human existence no longer affected Sam. While time, in terms of years, seemed to slip away unnoticed, the hours of the day crept by in agonizing slowness. Time no longer meant anything to him. Schedules all belonged to the nurses and aides and family members who waited on him. He himself had no claim to time. The staff dieticians and cooks decided what he would eat, and when. The aides assigned to care for him on any given day decided when he would be bathed, dressed, shaved, and even toileted. His family decided what clothes he needed, what treats to bring to him, and when he should go out. The activity director decided when he needed exercise, stimulation and entertainment, and he was delivered into her hands by the aides upon request.
There were few days when Sam could tell you what had occurred the day before, or even the hour before. He had little memory for what he had eaten for dinner Tuesday or breakfast Saturday. He seldom knew the day of the week or the correct month, although seasons were still instinctively evident. The minutia of every day had ceased to have meaning for him even before his nursing home days had begun ten years earlier, and he felt no concern or remorse over loss of interest in such trivia. But if you asked him if he remembered Pearl Harbor, or the day Franklin Roosevelt died, or what he was doing the day JFK was assassinated, he could tell you with detailed clarity what had gone on. He recalled vividly his wedding day, the day he and Martha buried their firstborn infant son, the details of the funeral of his grandson Sam who was killed in Vietnam, and what the weather was like on the day Martha died.
Sam also remembered the friends who had been most dear to him. They had all been gone for many years: Boots Martin, who had served with him in Germany in WW I; Alvy Hankins, who had gone to school with him and farmed outside of town; Dick Travis, who had been his business partner for nearly forty years ... all dead and buried long ago. It hadn't seemed unnatural that he had outlived them all, just part of life. But when he had outlived all of his children, the burden of life had become heavy, cumbersome. And now, at 102, it was nearly unbearable.
Sam had never been a complainer. Life was what it was. He didn't second-guess nature or the Creator. When he and Martha lost that first baby son, they had grieved and comforted one another, and eventually gone on with their lives. And God had blessed them with six healthy children who had survived well into old age. The death and destruction he had seen in the trenches during "the war to end all wars" was etched in his memory for all time, and yet he had survived it, both physically and emotionally. But when his grandson, young Samuel Wilks Duncan III, had been killed in Vietnam at the tender age of nineteen, it had taken much prayer and effort to overcome his sense of anger and grief. And when Martha died in 1989, at the ripe old age of ninety, and his own heart beat on strong and steady, even though he knew it was broken, he had shaken a mental fist at God and demanded to know why. Why must he be left to bear the burdens of life alone? At 93, why couldn't he go home, too?
That had been ten years ago. Ten years of slowly declining health, gradual loss of sight, hearing, movement and body function. Ten years of being taken here and there, regardless of his own wishes, by those whose job it was to provide him with comfort, stimulation, and quality of life. His grandchildren became so busy with their own lives that they seldom visited. And when his last surviving daughter had died of cancer last year at the age of 75, Sam couldn't help but wonder if God was allowing him to be put to the test, as he did Job. He felt very keenly the truth of Jesus' words in the Gospel of John:
... when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.
And so Sam had formed a mental list of Psalms from which to pray in all of his various moods:
How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? How long must I bear pain in my soul, and have sorrow in my heart all day long? -- Psalm 13:1-2
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? Oh my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest. -- Psalm 22:1-2
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for you are with me; your rod and your staff -- they comfort me. -- Psalm 23:4
As a deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God. -- Psalm 42:1
Do not cast me off in the time of old age; do not forsake me when my strength is spent. For my enemies speak concerning me, and those who watch for my life consult together. -- Psalm 71:9-10
Sing praises to the Lord, O you his faithful ones, and give thanks to his holy name. For his anger is but for a moment; his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may linger for the night, but joy comes with the morning. -- Psalm 30:4-5
Joy comes with the morning ... Sam's litany came to an end as the nurse pushed through the door with the medications.
"Good morning, Sam. Wake up, Arthur! It's time for your pills. It's a special day, Sam. Do you remember what day it is?"
"I don't know. Tuesday, maybe?"
"No, Saturday. You're going to have a lot of company today. This is your birthday, Sam. Do you remember how old you are today."
"I guess I'd be about 103."
"That's right. One hundred and three years old. Everyone is coming for your birthday party today. All of your grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and I've heard you even have a couple of great-great grandsons."
"I think they even named one of them after me."
"Well, April will be in in another hour or so to give you your breakfast and bath. When you're all dressed and ready, we'll take some pictures with all of your friends. Happy Birthday, Sam!"
One hundred and three. As he swallowed his pills, Sam's mind drifted back to the lighthearted days of his youth, when he and his friends used to say things like, "I'll never understand that if I live to be a hundred." Things don't really change, Sam thought. I've lived to be more than a hundred, and there are so many things I still don't understand. "Do not cast me off in the time of old age." "Weeping may linger with the night, but joy comes in the morning." Sam sighed and laid back to watch and wait.
39. Let Your Walking Do the Talking
Illustration
According to the book Life of Francis d'Assisi, Francis once invited a young monk to join him on a trip to town to preach. Honored to be given the invitation, the monk readily accepted. All day long he and Francis walked through the streets, byways, and alleys, and even into the suburbs. They rubbed shoulders with hundreds of people. At day's end, the two headed back home. Not even once had Francis addressed a crowd, nor had he talked to anyone about the gospel. Greatly disappointed, his youngcompanion said, "I thought we were going into town to preach."
Francis responded, "My son, we have preached. We were preaching while we were walking. We were seen by many and our behavior was closely watched. It is of no use to walk anywhere to preach unless we preach everywhere as we walk!"
40. Launching A Glider Rather Than A Jet
Illustration
Donald Grey Barnhouse
To preach a social gospel without the redemptive background of the individual salvation from sin of the individual sinner is like launching a glider instead of a high-powered plane. A glider may soar for awhile on the fickle currents of the wind, and climb high on some sudden up-draft, but it is the four whirl-wind motors that will carry a bomber to the stratosphere and jet-propulsion and rockets that will take a plane beyond the speed of sound.
41. God Is Good, Life Isn’t Fair
Illustration
Johnny Dean
I seriously doubt that the story of the early and late workers in the vineyard would make very many folks' Top Ten Parables list. It's the parable most everyone loves to hate. And for good reason! The parable runs against the grain of one of our most deeply cherished values, the value of hard work and just reward: The more you work and the more productive you are, the more you ought to get paid. Let's face it: this parable is just not fair! But, then again, as someone once said, "God is good, but life isn't fair!"
I remember well the first sermon I preached on this passage from Matthew's Gospel. An elder of the church I was serving at that time came up to me after the service and said, "Preacher, of all the texts you had to pick from, you had to choose my least favorite parable in all of the New Testament! Jesus should have known better than to tell something as unfair as this! The next time you decide to preach about that one, please let me know in advance so I can get an early tee time that Sunday!"
42. In the Know
Illustration
Michael Horton
One of the earliest and most potent threats to early Christianity came from the heretical group known as the Gnostics. Blending elements of Christianity, Greek philosophy, and oriental mysticism, the Gnostics denied the orthodox view of God, man, and the world, and Christ. The apostle John included them in the camp of the Antichrist.
The Gnostics were so called because of their view of revelation. The word gnosis is the Greek word for "knowledge." In many cases the Gnostic heretics did not make a frontal assault against the apostles or against the apostolic teaching of Scripture. In fact, many of them insisted that they were genuine, Bible-believing Christians. It wasn't that they rejected the Bible; they just claimed an additional source of knowledge or insight that was superior to or at least beyond the knowledge of Scripture. The "Gnostikoi" were "those in the know." Their knowledge was not derived from intellectual comprehension of the Scripture or by empirical research, but was mystical, direct, and immediate. God "revealed" private, intuitive insights to them that carried nothing less than divine authority.
Here is a typical Gnostic statement: "We cannot communicate with God mentally, for He is a Spirit. But we can reach Him with our Spirit, and it is through our Spirit that we come to know God….This is one reason God put teachers (those who are really called to teach) in the church to renew our minds. Many times those who teach do so with only a natural knowledge that they have gained from the Bible and other sources. But I am referring here to one of the ministry gifts. Those who are called and anointed by the Spirit to teach. God has given us His Word, and we can feed upon that Word. This will renew our minds. But He also puts teachers in the church to renew our minds and to bring us the revelation of the knowledge of God's Word." (Kenneth E. Hagin, Man on Three Dimensions (Tulsa, Okla.: Faith Library, 1985), 1:8,13.)
Notice that this quotation does not include a direct assault on the Bible. The Bible is recognized as God's word. But in order to understand the Bible we need something beyond our natural mental ability. We need the Spirit-anointed teachers to "bring us the revelation of the knowledge of God's Word." This is a typically Gnostic statement, but the quote is not from Valentinus or any of the other early Gnostics. It is from the pen of a modern missionary of Gnosticism, Kenneth E. Hagin. It is from Hagin's Man on Three Dimensions. Hagin's theology echoes the tripartite epistemology of early Gnosticism (man as having three separate entities: body, soul, and spirit).
Robert Tilton also claims a direct pipeline to divine revelation: "God showed me a vision that almost took my breath away. I was sucked into the Spirit . . ., caught away . . . and I found myself standing in the very presence of Almighty God. It just echoed into my being. And he said these words to me. . . exactly these words . . ."Many of my ministers pray for my people, but I want you to pray the Prayer of Agreement with them" . . . I have never seen the presence of God so powerful. This same anointing flooded my Spirit-man . . . It's inside of me now, and I have supernatural faith to agree with you. From that day forth, as I have been faithful to that heavenly vision, I've seen every kind of miracle imaginable happen when I pray the Prayer of Agreement with God's people." (Robert Tilton, newsletter from Robert Tilton Ministries, Word of Faith World Outreach Center, Box 819000, Dallas, TX75381.
It seems that in Robert Tilton the church is blessed with a twentieth-century apostle whose visions of revelation exceed that of the apostle John and whose miracle powers surpass that of the apostle Paul. If we are to believe Tilton's astonishing claims, there is no reason we should not include his writings in the next edition of the New Testament.
Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), has revelatory dreams and has warmly embraced the neo-Gnostic dogma. His network has become a prime distribution center for the growing movement. Kenneth Copeland also receives phrases from God in "his spirit."
43. Preach the Word
Illustration
Hugh Thomsen Kerr
“Preach the Word …” says Paul in this charge to Timothy. Hugh Thomsen Kerr put the emphasis correctly: We are...
- not to preach sociology, but salvation;
- not economics, but evangelism;
- not reform, but redemption;
- not culture, but conversion;
- not progress, but pardon;
- not a new social order, but a new birth;
- not revolution, but regeneration;
- not renovation, but revival;
- not resuscitation, but resurrection;
- not a new organization, but a new creation;
- not democracy, but the Gospel;
- not civilization, but Christ;
- we are ambassadors, not diplomats.
44. Appropriate to Speak
Illustration
Lewis Smedes
The commandment tells us to speak truthfully whenever it is appropriate for us to speak at all. Respect for truthfulness does not compel us to reveal our minds to everyone or on every occasion. The Ninth Commandment assumes, no doubt, a situation that calls on us to speak. It does not ask us to tell the people at the next table in a restaurant that their manners are repulsive. It does not obligate a nurse to contradict a physician at a sick person's bedside. Nor does it require me to divulge all of my feelings to a stranger on the bus. We are called to speak the truth in any situation in which we have a responsibility to communicate.
Further, the command requires only a revelation that is pertinent to the situation. A politician ought to speak the truth about public matters as he sees them; he does not need to tell us how he feels about his wife. A doctor ought to tell me the truth, as he understands it, about my health; he does not need to tell me his views on universal health insurance. A minister ought to preach the truth, as he sees it, about the gospel; he does not need to tell the congregation what he feels about the choir director. The commandment does not call us to be garrulous blabbermouths. Truthfulness is demanded from us about the things that we ought to speak about at all.
45. Find the Road to Jesus
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
Long ago a young man was starting out as a minister in London. He approached an aged pastor who had spent his lifetime preaching the Gospel.
"You have had a great deal of experience," he said to the old man. "You know how many things that I ought to learn. Can't you give me some advice to carry with me in my duties?" "Yes I can", was the answer. "I will give you a piece of advice. You know that in every town in England, no matter how small, in every village or hamlet, though it be hidden in the folds of the mountain or wrapped around by the far-off sea, in every clump of farmhouses, you can find a road that, if you follow it, will take you to London. Just so, every text that you choose to preach from the Bible will have a road that leads to Jesus. Be sure you find that road and follow it."
Good advice for preaching but excellent advice for living. It doesn't matter where we live, who we are, our professions, our level of learning, our achievement; our house, no matter what house it is, can be the house of our dreams because of Christmas. And it doesn't matter where we go, looking for that house of our dreams, we find that house only as we find Jesus.
46. TO BE WHAT WE ARE
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild ... sweet, passive, wish-washy Jesus was not the man who whipped animals and beat up money changers at the annual Passover festival in Jerusalem. Tables overturned, money crashing to the floor, rolling everywhere, pigeons frantically flying for cover, men screaming in pain, adding salty language to the cacophony of sound and confusion all taking place in the Holy Temple. "What has the Master gotten himself into now?" his disciples probably worried. "Take these things away," Jesus screamed, "You shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade."
Slowly order was restored, perhaps coming at the point of Jesus’ exhaustion. Gingerly, Jews quizzed him on the appropriateness of his behavior. "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" they asked. A reasonable question from the uninitiated. One might rather have expected a few cries of "Throw the bum out of here" or demands for retribution. Jesus probably commanded so much authority that hasty action against him was not considered wise.
Our Lord's answer to their question confused his hearers. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," Jesus offered.
"It has taken forty-six years to build this temple and will you raise it up in three days?" they questioned in unbelief. At the time not even Jesus’ disciples understood what he was suggesting. Only after his resurrection did they realize that the temple referred to his body that would be destroyed and then resurrected in three days.
In Jesus’ ministry there is evidence that he regarded his death as the means by which the old sacrificial system would be condemned and the new Israel would come into being after his resurrection. Here he refers to his body as the temple. Later Saint Paul refers to the church as the "body of Christ" - a body alive, growing, reaching out, ever-changing with many parts working together for the good of the whole. Its hands are not made for patting itself on the back but for reaching out to the lost. Its eyes are not fixed on a rearview mirror looking at where it has been but are busy seeking a glimpse of the Father’s vision of where it should go. Its legs do not run in busy circles but walk the road of obedience. It does not lose heart when confronted by risk but follows the Spirit’s leading even into the unknown. Its mouth does not seek to speak of Jesus as the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, but as God’s gift of love and forgiveness for those who are hurting. The church endeavors to unite its mind with God’s mind, its will with his will, its purposes with his purposes, and its plans with his plans.
Seized by the Spirit of God the church lives as if all depends on God, for its very life is dependent upon God. It shares with God in the salvation of his children. As it does this, it gently comforts the afflicted and boldly afflicts the comfortable. Jesus, the church’s head, is its leader. Jesus, meek and mild, sometimes; Jesus, bold and belligerent, often.
"To be or not to be," is rarely the question for the church. Jesus dwells in the midst of our community. We are the church - the body of Christ. Come Holy Spirit, we pray, help us to be more completely what we are.
47. Is It Wellwith Your Family? - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
I must candidly confess that when I was in seminary the 16th chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans didn't do much for me. It struck me as being boring nothing more than a long presentation of people's names, most of whom I could not pronounce; I usually skimmed over that part so I could get to what I considered to be the real Gospel. Over the years I have greatly changed my attitude about this particular chapter and I have discovered that there is much more to it than I had first imagined. For example, it is interesting to note that of the twenty-six people who Paul singles out for his personal greeting, six were women. Now that strikes me as being rather interesting, since Paul has frequently gotten a bum rap for being a male chauvinist. I think it also shows us the tremendous influence that women had in the early church. In the male oriented first century Palestine, it is telling that Paul could not describe the church without mentioning the significant role of women.
Verse 13 of chapter 16 is particularly interesting and it is one that scholars have struggled with over the centuries. Paul writes: "Give my greetings to Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." Now this statement could be taken two ways. It could mean that Paul had two distinct women in mind--the mother of Rufus and his own personal mother. Or, he could be saying: "I salute Rufus and his mother, who is like a mother to me." If that is what he meant, and most Biblical scholars agree that that is indeed what he meant, then it raises some interesting speculation. When and where did Paul meet Rufus' mother? Did she nurse him through some serious illness?
Did she receive him into her home for an extended stay during his missionary journeys? How did this woman and Paul form such a close bond that he refers to her fondly as being like his mother? Mark tells us that Simon of Cyrene, the man who carried Jesus cross, had two sons: Alexander and Rufus. Was this the same Rufus to whom Paul was speaking? If that is true, his mother would be Simon of Syrene's wife. No one knows for sure who this remarkable woman was who served as a mother figure for the great Paul. But it really makes no difference, because what he writes makes an excellent springboard for a Mother's Day sermon.
Some people ridicule Mother's Day as a lot of sentimental drivel. They say that it is nothing more than the creation of the greeting card companies and the florists. And, to be perfectly candid, there are many ministers who shun this day because, they say, it is not a religious holiday. Furthermore, they preach from the lectionary, which has an assigned scriptural reading each week, and therefore mother's day is left out.
Well, of course, we must admit that there is sentiment to this day, but what is wrong with that? Seems to me that a little bit of sentiment is healthy. True enough, there are some women in the Bible, such as Jezebel and the vindictive Herodias, who had John the Baptist beheaded, who tarnish the institution of motherhood. There are women today who abandon, abuse, and corrupt their children and who create a poor model, but I like to think that these are the exceptions. Most mothers do the right thing and deserve recognition. So this morning I would like to join Paul and salute all of the mothers who are with us.
1. First, mothers should be saluted for their tenacious love.
2. Secondly, mothers should be saluted for the tremendous impact they have.
3. Third, mothers should be saluted because where they are, that is where home is.
48. The duch*ess of Buckingham
Illustration
John Pollock
In the 18th Century, Selina, Countess of Huntington, invited the duch*ess of Buckingham to come and hear evangelist George Whitfield preach. The duch*ess wrote to the Countess of Huntington about the Gospel that Whitefield and his fellow “Methodists” preached as follows:
“It is monstrous to be told that you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl on the earth. This is highly offensive and insulting; and I cannot but wonder that your Ladyship should relish any sentiments so much at variance with high rank and good breeding.”
49. The Time for Practice Is Now
Illustration
To those Christians who are always in a hurry, here's some good advice from the 19th-century preacher A.B. Simpson:
"Beloved, have you ever thought that someday you will not have anything to try you, or anyone to vex you again? There will be no opportunity in heaven to learn or to show the spirit of patience, forbearance, and long-suffering. If you are to practice these things, it must be now."
Yes, each day affords countless opportunities to learn patience. Let's not waste them.
Commenting on our need for this virtue, M.H. Lount has said, "God's best gifts come slowly. We could not use them if they did not. Many a man, called of God to...a work in which he is pouring out his life, is convinced that the Lord means to bring his efforts to a successful conclusion. Nevertheless, even such a confident worker grows discouraged at times and worries because results do not come as rapidly as he would desire. But growth and strength in waiting are results often greater than the end so impatiently longed for. Paul had time to realize this as he lay in prison. Moses must have asked, 'Why?' many times during the delays in Midian and in the wilderness. Jesus Himself experienced the discipline of delay in His silent years before His great public ministry began."
God wants us to see results as we work for Him, but His first concern is our growth. That's why He often withholds success until we have learned patience. The Lord teaches us this needed lesson through the blessed discipline of delay.
50. Laws of the Harvest
Illustration
Staff
The following article is based on a sermon by missionary Del Tarr who served fourteen years in West Africa with another mission agency. His story points out the price some people pay to sow the seed of the gospel in hard soil:
I was always perplexed by Psalm 126 until I went to the Sahel, that vast stretch of savanna more than four thousand miles wide just under the Sahara Desert. In the Sahel, all the moisture comes in a four month period: May, June, July, and August. After that, not a drop of rain falls for eight months. The ground cracks from dryness, and so do your hands and feet. The winds of the Sahara pick up the dust and throw it thousands of feet into the air. It then comes slowly drifting across West Africa as a fine grit. It gets inside your mouth. It gets inside your watch and stops it. The year's food, of course, must all be grown in those four months. People grow sorghum or milo in small fields.
October and November...these are beautiful months. The granaries are full the harvest has come. People sing and dance. They eat two meals a day. The sorghum is ground between two stones to make flour and then a mush with the consistency of yesterday's Cream of Wheat. The sticky mush is eaten hot; they roll it into little balls between their fingers, drop it into a bit of sauce and then pop it into their mouths. The meal lies heavy on their stomachs so they can sleep.
December comes, and the granaries start to recede. Many families omit the morning meal. Certainly by January not one family in fifty is still eating two meals a day.
By February, the evening meal diminishes. The meal shrinks even more during March and children succumb to sickness. You don't stay well on half a meal a day.
April is the month that haunts my memory. In it you hear the babies crying in the twilight. Most of the days are passed with only an evening cup of gruel. Then, inevitably, it happens. A six or seven-year-old boy comes running to his father one day with sudden excitement. "Daddy! Daddy! We've got grain!" he shouts.
"Son, you know we haven't had grain for weeks."
"Yes, we have!" the boy insists. "Out in the hut where we keep the goats there's a leather sack hanging up on the wall I reached up and put my hand down in there Daddy, there's grain in there! Give it to Mommy so she can make flour, and tonight our tummies can sleep!"
The father stands motionless. "Son, we can't do that," he softly explains. "That's next year's seed grain. It's the only thing between us and starvation. We're waiting for the rains, and then we must use it."
The rains finally arrive in May, and when they do the young boy watches as his father takes the sack from the wall and does the most unreasonable thing imaginable. Instead of feeding his desperately weakened family, he goes to the field and with tears streaming down his face, he takes the precious seed and throws it away. He scatters it in the dirt! Why? Because he believes in the harvest.
The seed is his; he owns it. He can do anything with it he wants. The act of sowing it hurts so much that he cries. But as the African pastors say when they preach on Psalm 126, "Brother and sisters, this is God's law of the harvest. Don't expect to rejoice later on unless you have been willing to sow in tears."
And I want to ask you: How much would it cost you to sow in tears? I don't mean just giving God something from your abundance, but finding a way to say, "I believe in the harvest, and therefore I will give what makes no sense. The world would call me unreasonable to do this but I must sow regardless, in order that I may someday celebrate with songs of joy."
Showing
1
to
50
of
818
results
- Most pastors lack extensive secular work experience, survey finds
- DUI, tampons in boys' bathrooms: 4 controversies to know involving Tim Walz
- Christian investors ask Costco, Walmart, major retailers not to sell abortion pill
- 'Thank you, Jesus': Kenneth Copeland praises God for Bentley with Breitling clock as seed offering from dying man
- Divine intervention? 'Politics in the Pews' looks at impact of Trump's assassination attempt on Evangelicals
- Pakistani man arrested for plot to kill Trump, US officials: 'Straight out of the Iranian playbook'
- Texas pays over $358K to end lawsuit over atheist group’s Bill of Rights ‘nativity’ scene
- Muslim mob tries to kill Christian mother accused of blasphemy who could face life in prison
- Brandon Lake, Elevation Worship’s Chris Brown reflect on No. 1 hit song 'Praise!'
- Pro Football Hall of Famer shares 'Gospel of salvation' during induction speech
- Choctaw Bibles Connect Christians with Lost Heritage
- An Assassination Attempt in Brazil Brought Politics into Churches
- In Asian American Churches, Generational Differences Deter Young Leaders
- What Wrestling Taught an Olympic Gold Medalist About God
- O Say Can You See God in These 5 National Anthems?
- Nigerian Church Watches, Prays as Ocean Rises
- New Alliance Aims to Unite Chinese Churches Divided by Geopolitics
- Americans Are Still Inviting People to Church
- ERLC Retracts Announcement Firing President Brent Leatherwood
- Homelessness Hits Record High, Straining Rescue Missions
- Jean-Paul Sartre
- Ohio father's shocking religious act leaves community in mourning
- Bangladesh: The moment the Prime Minister of Bangladesh fled to India
- Former Indian cricketer confused after ‘crazy’ and ‘ridiculous’ decision for third ODI vs Sri Lanka
- J.D. Vance Used to Be an Atheist. What He Believes Now Is Telling.
- 'Thank you, Jesus': Kenneth Copeland praises God for Bentley with Breitling clock as seed offering from dying man
- Small North Texas town rejects Mormons' plans to construct massive temple
- Bangladesh: ISKCON temple torched in Bangladesh amid surge of anti-government violence
- Iraq Debates Legalizing Marriage for 9-Year-Old Girls
- What Churches Lose When They Fight like the World Fights
- Kamala Harris, Catholics, and Hispanics
- J.D. Vance Used to Be an Atheist. What He Believes Now Is Telling.
- The Modern Olympics and its Religious Origins
- In Iraq, ISIS Is Gone, but Christians Remain Forgotten
- How US Public Schools Became a New Religious Battleground
- After Controversies, SBC Turns to Low-Key Leader to Keep Things Cool
- Nixon Resignation 50 Years Later
- The Historic Creeds vs. Passing Theological Fads
- Reality Is Strange
- The Evangelical Diploma Divide
