Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

The English word “angel” refers to nonhuman spirits, usually good. The biblical words usually translated “angel” mean “messenger” and can refer to one sent by God or by human beings. A messenger must be utterly loyal, reliable, and able to act confidentially (Prov. 13:17). The messenger speaks and acts in the name of the sender (Gen. 24).

Messengers sent by God are not always angels. Yahweh’s prophets were his messengers (Hag. 1:13), as were priests (Mal. 2:7).

Births in the ancient world were the domain of women. The women who bore children were often assisted in the birthing process by midwives (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:1520).

Many women utilized a birthing stool (Exod. 1:16). Upon birth, the newborn often was washed with water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in cloths (Ezek. 16:4; Luke 2:7, 12). The OT required women to undergo a rite of purification following childbirth (Exod. 13:2, 20; 34:20; Lev. 12:6–8; Luke 2:22–24). This purification lasted forty days after the birth of a son and eighty days after the birth of a daughter and concluded with the sacrifice of both a burnt offering and a sin offering.

Birthing was valued, and women who were considered to be infertile often faced great shame (1Sam. 1:10–11; Luke 1:25). Pain in childbirth was associated with the sin of Eve (Gen. 3:16), and conversely, absence of pain was interpreted as a sign that a woman was particularly righteous. According to Josephus, Moses was born with no pain to his mother, and the Protevangelium of James indicates the same about Mary’s labor with Jesus.

The Bible sometimes employs the language of birth as a spiritual metaphor. In John 3:3–6 Jesus instructs Nicodemus about the need for spiritual birth by explaining that he must be born again. In Rom. 8:22 Paul describes the whole of creation as experiencing the pain of childbirth as it awaits redemption, and in Gal. 4:19 he says that he is in labor for a second time with the Galatians as he desires the formation of Christ in them.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:15). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

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

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

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

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All the Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

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

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

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

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

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

Passion week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

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

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

The second king of Israel (r. 1010970 BC), founder of a dynasty that continued with his son Solomon (r. 970–931 BC), who ruled all of Israel; subsequently the remaining “sons of David” ruled the southern kingdom, Judah, until 586 BC.

Human kingship is a late development in Israel, but a number of ancient texts anticipate the establishment of the institution (Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20) and specifically the rise of a king from Judah (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:17). Thus, it is surprising that the first king of Israel is not from Judah, but from Benjamin. When the people ask Samuel for a king, he anoints Saul (1Sam. 8–12), who proves to be a tremendous disappointment. He forfeits the establishment of his dynasty when he shows a lack of confidence in God by rashly offering prebattle sacrifices (13:13–14). God then rejects Saul as king because he does not execute God’s full judgment against the Amalekites as he knows he should (15:23).

Eventually Saul’s moment of judgment comes. Saul’s final battle is against the Philistines, the major foreign force still inside the borders of the promised land. Both Saul and Jonathan meet their end on Mount Gilboa, and David sings songs that express his sadness over their deaths (1Sam. 31–2Sam. 1).

Even with Saul out of the way, David’s rise to kingship is not easy. He is immediately crowned king of Judah (2Sam. 2:1–7), but the northern tribes choose to follow Ish-Bosheth, the son of Saul. War erupts between the two kingdoms. Eventually, though, the powerful general Abner abandons his support of Saul’s son, sealing the end of that dynasty. Ish-Bosheth is killed by his own men, and soon David becomes king over all Israel (5:1–5).

David’s kingship leads to significant victories that, in essence, complete the conquest of Canaan by finally subduing all the internal enemies. His men take the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and he makes it his capital (2Sam. 5:6–16). He also defeats the Philistines, who have been a thorn in the side of Israel for years (2Sam. 5:17–25; for other victories, see 8:1–14). In celebration, David brings the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2Sam. 6).

The David narrative reaches its apex when God enters into a covenant with him that establishes his dynasty (2Sam. 7; 1Chron. 17). After David dies, his son will succeed him, and indeed his dynasty lasts for many hundreds of years (see below).

David is a good king, but not a perfect king. A turning point in his reign comes in 2Sam. 11. Up to this point, David has been content with what God has given him. He does not grasp for anything that does not belong to him. However, when he sees the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he sends messengers to bring her to his house, where the two have sexual intercourse and she becomes pregnant. In an attempt to conceal this sin of adultery, he orders the death of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Thus, he adds the crime of murder to that of adultery.

David thinks that the sin is secret, but nothing is hidden from God, who sends his prophet Nathan to confront David (2Sam. 12; cf. Ps. 51). The difference between Saul and David is not that the latter is perfect but rather that David, as opposed to Saul, repents when he sins. Thus, God allows his reign to continue. Even so, David feels the consequences of his sin. First, the son that Bathsheba bears from her illicit union with David is struck with illness and dies. And ever afterward, David’s family life is troubled, with great impact on the political life of Israel. Son is pitted against son (Amnon and Absalom [2Sam. 13]), as well as son against father (Absalom and David [2Sam. 15–18]). Absalom temporarily deposes his father from the throne, but David eventually regains the kingship, though at the cost of the heartbreaking loss of his son.

Even at the very end, there is conflict within David’s house. When David has grown old, another son, Adonijah, attempts to take the throne, with support from powerful people such as Joab and Abiathar. At the instigation of Bathsheba and Nathan, however, David places the son of his choosing, Solomon, on the throne (1Kings 1). David then dies after a reign of forty-one years, seven in Hebron and the rest over all Israel (1Kings 2:10–12).

David’s greatest legacy is the dynasty that bears his name. Beginning with Solomon, however, his successors do not continue his spiritual legacy. Although a number of kings do some good, only Hezekiah (r. 727–698 BC) and Josiah (r. 639–609 BC) are given unqualified approval. Eventually, the Davidic rule comes to an end in Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians (586 BC). But God is not done with his redemptive purposes, and his promise to David is that he will have a ruler on the throne “forever” (2Sam. 7:16). The NT recognizes that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. He is the greater son of David, the one who is the Christ or Messiah, the anointed king. Jesus is the one who reigns forever in heaven. The life and the rule of David foreshadow the messianic rule of Jesus Christ.

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 first child born to a married couple. In the OT it most commonly refers to the first male child, upon whom special privileges were bestowed. The OT describes some of the privileges associated with being the firstborn son: he would receive a double portion of the inheritance (a privilege codified in the law in Deut. 21:17), the paternal blessing (Gen. 27; 48:1719), and other examples of favoritism (e.g., Gen. 43:33). The importance ascribed to the firstborn is also attested in the legislative requirement that the firstborn—people, animals, and produce—belong to Yahweh (Lev. 27:26; Deut. 15:19; and of people, note Num. 3:12–13), so stressing his primacy over Israel.

“Firstborn” language is also used figuratively in the OT. It is used of Israel as Yahweh’s firstborn in Exod. 4:22–23, wherein Pharaoh’s failure to release Yahweh’s firstborn results in the destruction of Egypt’s firstborn. God also declares the Davidic king to be his firstborn son in Ps. 89:27, highlighting the special favor that he would enjoy. “Firstborn” language can also be used figuratively to describe anything that receives a greater share, such as “the firstborn of Death” in Job 18:13 (NRSV) and “the firstborn of the poor” in Isa. 14:30 (NRSV).

Somewhat surprisingly, God does not adhere to the significance of primogeniture, frequently bestowing his favor on those who were not firstborn: Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph and Judah over Reuben, Ephraim over Manasseh, Moses over Aaron, David over his brothers, and Solomon over Adonijah.

The NT presupposes an understanding of the significance of the firstborn. Jesus is specifically identified as Mary’s firstborn (Luke 2:7, 23). However, the description extends beyond mere notions of human primogeniture when Jesus is described as “firstborn over all creation” (Col. 1:15) and “firstborn from among the dead” (Col. 1:18; cf. Rev. 1:5). These expressions, in line with figurative use of “firstborn” language in the OT, express Jesus’ privileged place in both creation and the new creation.

The various Hebrew and Greek words that express the idea of fulfillment occur hundreds of times in the Bible, and the concept often is present even when the specific word is not. At the basic level, fulfillment indicates a relationship between two (or more) things in which the second is said to “fill up” the significance of the first. Frequently this takes the form of a specific promise that is said to be fulfilled when the person, object, or event referred to comes to pass. There are countless examples of this type of fulfillment, some of which even quote the specific promise that is being fulfilled. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10) are said to be fulfilled when Cyrus permits the Jews to return to the land (Ezra 1:14). Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1–6) fulfills the promise of a ruler who will shepherd Israel (Mic. 5:2).

But the concept of fulfillment goes beyond specific promises that are then said to be fulfilled in a particular person, object, or event. In the broadest sense of the term, one can say that the NT fulfills what the OT promises. After his resurrection, Jesus reminds his disciples, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He then provides a summary of the entire OT message: “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46–47).

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.

For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.

The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:1315). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life.

Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor. 3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

(1)The eleventh son of Judah and the first by Jacob’s beloved wife, Rachel (Gen. 30:24; 35:24).

Joseph was Jacob’s favorite, and so Jacob “made an ornate robe for him” (37:3). While shepherding with his brothers, Joseph had a dream indicating that he would one day rise to prominence over them. This was too much for his brothers to bear, and so they decided, after some deliberation, to throw him into a cistern and, rather than kill him, sell him to passing Ishmaelite/Midianite merchants (37:2528).

Upon arriving in Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an official of Pharaoh, and then thrown in jail after Potiphar’s wife falsely accused him of making sexual advances (chap. 39). While in jail, he accurately interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker (chap. 40). Two years later, he was called upon to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams (chap. 41). Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams plus his administrative skills saved Egypt from famine, which resulted in his elevation to being “in charge of the whole land of Egypt” (41:41).

It was the famine that brought Joseph’s family to Egypt to find food, which eventually led to their warm reunion, though not without some testing on Joseph’s part (chaps. 42–45). After Joseph made himself known to his brothers, they reconciled and sent for the elderly Jacob, who was awaiting news in Canaan. Thus, Jacob and his twelve sons lived in Egypt, and their descendants were eventually enslaved by a king “to whom Joseph meant nothing” (Exod. 1:8).

Joseph died in Egypt and was embalmed (Gen. 50:20–26). The exodus generation took his bones out of Egypt (Exod. 13:19), and he was later buried in Shechem (Josh. 24:32).

(2)The husband of Mary, mentioned only by name in Jesus’ birth stories in Matthew and Luke. According to Matt. 1:16, Joseph is a descendant of David, which establishes Jesus’ royal bloodline. Luke’s genealogy (3:23–38) downplays Jesus’ relationship to Joseph. In Matthew, Joseph is a recipient of several divine communications by means of dreams, announcing Mary’s conception (1:18–25) and commanding the flight to Egypt (2:13) and the return to Nazareth (2:19–23). In Luke, Joseph takes Mary to Bethlehem to give birth (2:4–7), presents Jesus in the temple for consecration (2:21–24), and brings Mary and Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover feast when Jesus is twelve (2:41–52).

(3)A Jew from Arimathea, a secret follower of Jesus and member of the Sanhedrin who did not agree to put Jesus to death (Luke 23:50–51; John 19:38). He asked Pilate for Jesus’ body, wrapped it in linen, and placed it in his own tomb (Matt. 27:57–60). (4)Also known as Barsabbas or Justus, he was one of the two men proposed to take Judas Iscariot’s place among the disciples (Acts 1:23).

(1)The most important Mary of the NT is the mother of Jesus, who becomes pregnant through the Holy Spirit while still a virgin. In contrast with Matthew’s birth narrative, where the emphasis falls on Joseph, Luke’s focuses on Mary. Luke’s Gospel introduces Mary as the one to whom God sends the angel Gabriel (1:2627). Gabriel announces that Mary will be the mother of the Messiah from David’s line, who will reign over the house of Jacob and have a unique father-son relationship with God. Mary responds in humble obedience as “the Lord’s servant” (1:29–38). When she visits her relative Elizabeth, Mary breaks forth in the Magnificat, a song praising God for caring for the humble, humbling the mighty, and remembering his covenant with Abraham (1:46–55).

After the birth of Jesus and the visit from the shepherds, Mary “treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (2:19). An old man, Simeon, announces that although Jesus will be a light of revelation for the Gentiles and Israel’s glory, Mary will be deeply grieved, and her soul will be pierced by a sword (2:35). This is the first hint in Luke’s Gospel that Mary’s child, the Messiah, will suffer. In the only episode from Jesus’ childhood in the Gospel, Mary scolds her son for remaining in the temple while his family traveled back to Galilee (2:48). In Luke’s Gospel, Mary is a humble and obedient woman who reflects deeply about her experiences surrounding the birth of Jesus and cares greatly for him as well. Beyond the birth narratives, Mary does not figure as a prominent character in the Gospels. In John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks sternly to his mother when she wants him to perform a miracle before his “hour has ... come” (2:4); however, at the crucifixion, Mary is present, and Jesus places her into the care of the Beloved Disciple (19:25–27). Later traditions about Mary’s immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and roles as co-mediator of salvation and answerer of prayer are not taught in the Bible.

(2)Another Mary mentioned in the Gospels is the sister of Martha, who is praised by Jesus for not busying herself with domestic duties as Martha does, but rather sits at the feet of Jesus, “listening to what he said” (Luke 10:39–40). This same Mary is mentioned on another occasion as the one “who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair” (John 11:1–2; cf. 12:1–8). The Synoptic Gospels record a similar event in which a woman, left unnamed, anoints either the feet of Jesus (Luke 7:36–50) or his head (Matt. 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9). With the exception of Luke, it seems as though John, Matthew, and Mark are recording the same event. In each of these three, Jesus associates the anointing with the preparation of his body for burial.

(3)Mary Magdalene makes a brief appearance during the ministry of Jesus, and Luke describes her as one who had been cured of seven demons (Luke 8:2). It is quite unlikely that she is the “sinful” woman of the preceding narrative (7:37–50), an association that has given rise to the erroneous belief that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. She is the first to witness the empty tomb (John 20:1). Likewise, she is the first to see the resurrected Lord and is commanded to go and tell the disciples about his resurrection (John 20:11–18; cf. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1–6; Luke 24:1–10). She is even present for the crucifixion (Matt. 27:56) and the burial of Jesus’ body (Matt. 27:61).

(4)Mary the mother of James and Joses (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40) is one of two other Marys who, like Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus, appear at the crucifixion. She may be the same person as #5.

(5)Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25) is the second of the two other Marys who, like Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus, appear at the crucifixion. She may be the same person as #4.

The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”

In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1Sam. 16:1 13; 2Sam. 2:4, 7).

The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.

The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v.7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v.2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v.8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v.9; see NIV footnote). Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.

Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).

In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.

“Salvation” is the broadest term used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.

In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:57; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).

Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).

But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins.

In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.

The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.

The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).

The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).

Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:2833; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).

The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.

In the OT, wisdom is a characteristic of someone who attains a high degree of knowledge, technical skill, and experience in a particular domain. It refers to the ability that certain individuals have to use good judgment in running the affairs of state (Joseph in Gen. 41:33; David in 2Sam. 14:20; Solomon in 1Kings 3:9, 12, 28). It can also refer to the navigational skills that sailors use in maneuvering a ship through difficult waters (Ps. 107:27). Furthermore, wisdom includes the particular skills of an artisan (Exod. 31:6; 35:35; 1Chron. 22:15 16). In all these cases, wisdom involves the expertise that a person acquires to accomplish a particular task. In these instances “wisdom” is an ethically neutral term, or at least that dimension is not emphasized. The wise are those who have mastered a certain skill set in their field of expertise.

The uniqueness of the OT wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) is that it highlights the moral dimension of wisdom. Here “wisdom” refers to developing expertise in negotiating the complexities of life and managing those complexities in a morally responsible way that honors God and benefits both the community and the individual. Although it is difficult to pin down a concise definition, one can gain a better understanding of wisdom by investigating two important dimensions: wisdom as a worldview, and the traits of a person who is considered to be wise.

Who is wise? First, the wise are those involved in a lifelong process of character development. They manifest the virtues of righteousness, justice, and equity (Prov. 1:3; 2:9). The embodiment of these virtues culminates in the description of the woman of noble character at the conclusion of Proverbs (31:10–31). She exhibits self-control, patience, care, diligence, discipline, humility, generosity, honesty, and fear of the Lord (cf. James 3:13–18). She is the epitome of wisdom in its maturity and the model that all should emulate.

Second, the wise know the value of words and how to use them. They know when to speak, what to say, and how to say it (Job 29:21–22; Prov. 15:23; 25:11; Eccles. 3:7; 12:9–10). Wisdom and the wise place a premium on the power of words.

Third, the wise place great importance on relationships and on interaction with others. The wise person is the one who is open to the give-and-take of relationships (Prov. 27:5–6, 17, 19). Such a person develops the humility necessary to receive correction and criticism from others. Hearing criticism and changing wrong behavior are integral to wisdom (3:1–11). The wise appreciate insightful criticism because it helps them live life more productively (15:12). Wisdom is, ultimately, relational.

Fourth, the wise person develops the art of discernment (Prov. 1:2, 4–6). The sage is equipped with the ability to think critically. The very quality of wisdom itself invites the re-forming and rethinking of ideas. Sages are not interested in pat answers (26:4–5). Proverbs 16:1–9 throws a wrench in the conventional cogs of wisdom, claiming that although humans make their plans, God has the final say. Both Job and Ecclesiastes go head to head with conventional beliefs, probing more deeply into the complexities of life and the relationship between human and divine. No easy answers exist here. In contrast, fools do not use their mental faculties. They view wisdom as a commodity, a matter of learning some techniques, accepting certain beliefs, and memorizing a few proverbs (17:16). The wise, however, know that wisdom involves the art of critical thinking and interacting with others.

Fifth, and most fundamental, the wise person takes a God-centered focus toward life. Wisdom literature affirms, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10; cf. Prov. 1:7; Job 28:28; Eccles. 12:13). That this is the beginning step in the process of gaining wisdom means that one who misses this step can proceed no further along the path to wisdom. The fear of the Lord is to wisdom as the letters of the alphabet are to forming words. The wise gain wisdom by being in relationship with the Lord (Prov. 3:5–8). The fear of the Lord is the beginning as well as the culmination of wisdom.

Wisdom is a highly prized quality, superior to might and power (Prov. 25:15; Eccles. 9:13–16), and one must diligently seek it (Prov. 2:1–5). Yet in the end, wisdom is a gift that only God can give (Prov. 2:6–8; 1Kings 3:9).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase ’immanu’el, which means “God is with us.” This name is a reminder of God’s presence, and although the name “Immanuel” appears in the Bible only a few times (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 8:10), the theme of God’s presence is one of the most prevalent in Scripture.

In Isa. 7 the prophet Isaiah tells King Ahaz not to fear the two kings who threaten him, but to trust in God. In fact, Isaiah proclaims, God will give a sign to Ahaz. An unnamed “virgin” (Heb. ’almah, which normally means “young, unmarried woman”) will conceive and give birth to a child, whose name will be “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Interestingly, there is no mention of a father. Before this child grows old enough to know right from wrong, Isaiah continues, God will destroy both of the kings who threaten Ahaz (7:15–16). At this point, the sign of Immanuel appears to refer to a child born during the time of Ahaz as a sign to him of God’s power and ability to deliver.

Yet, this promised child seems to be rather unusual. In Isa. 8:8 God declares that Immanuel owns all the land of Judah, indicating that he is no mere unknown or obscure child. Furthermore, in 8:10 victory is declared for Judah because “God is with us [’immanu’el].” The use of this phrase is a wordplay on the name “Immanuel,” suggesting that the sign of a child named “Immanuel” may point to something beyond just a child in Ahaz’s time.

In the LXX, the word used for the young, unmarried woman in Isa. 7:14, parthenos, explicitly meant “virgin.” Using this Greek word, Matthew declares that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). Thus, it appears that Isa. 7:14 was fulfilled twice, or at least that the prophecy contained a dual aspect. It was fulfilled first in a minimal way during the reign of Ahaz and then ultimately by the virgin birth of Jesus.

Matthew, of course, is saying much more than that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isa. 7:14: Jesus embodies the presence of God. The presence of God is a major theological theme running throughout the Bible. Matthew opens his Gospel with the proclamation that Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel, “God is with us” (1:23), and he closes with Jesus’ statement “I am with you always” (28:20), a promise of Jesus Christ’s empowering presence. The Gospel of John opens with the same theme, stating, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (1:14). Frequently in the NT, Jesus is connected to the powerful presence of God. At the climactic end of the biblical story the focus is once again on presence, as the “Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” once again dwell with God’s people in the garden (Rev. 21–22), the ultimate example of “God is with us.”

The various Hebrew and Greek words that express the idea of fulfillment occur hundreds of times in the Bible, and the concept often is present even when the specific word is not. At the basic level, fulfillment indicates a relationship between two (or more) things in which the second is said to “fill up” the significance of the first. Frequently this takes the form of a specific promise that is said to be fulfilled when the person, object, or event referred to comes to pass. There are countless examples of this type of fulfillment, some of which even quote the specific promise that is being fulfilled. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10) are said to be fulfilled when Cyrus permits the Jews to return to the land (Ezra 1:1–4). Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1–6) fulfills the promise of a ruler who will shepherd Israel (Mic. 5:2).

But the concept of fulfillment goes beyond specific promises that are then said to be fulfilled in a particular person, object, or event. In the broadest sense of the term, one can say that the NT fulfills what the OT promises. After his resurrection, Jesus reminds his disciples, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He then provides a summary of the entire OT message: “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46–47).

Although all four Gospels describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT hope, Matthew places special emphasis on this by his use of the term “fulfill” when introducing OT quotes. He does so eleven times (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 27:9), most of which have no direct parallel in the other Gospels. In some of these examples the passage quoted from the OT specifically points forward to a future fulfillment, such as the promise in Isa. 7:14 of a child being born finding its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:23). But in other cases the OT passage said to be fulfilled does not appear to be a prediction at all in its original context. Commenting on Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus leaving Egypt to eventually settle in Nazareth, Matthew notes that this departure took place to fulfill “what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ ” (2:15). The quotation comes from Hos. 11:1, which says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” In its original context, Hos. 11:1 is a straightforward statement of God leading the people of Israel out of their Egyptian captivity in the exodus. There is no indication that the prophet is predicting anything at all; he is instead recounting historical fact. But in that historical event Matthew sees an anticipation of Jesus’ own exodus out of Egypt. The correspondence between the two events rests in recognizing that just as Israel was God’s son (cf. Exod. 4:22), so too Jesus is the Son of God (Matt. 3:17), albeit in a much more profound way.

Fulfillment often takes place in stages. An example of this is seen in the numerous promises surrounding the day of the Lord. On the one hand, the prophets speak of the day of the Lord in a way that anticipates a catastrophic event in the near future (Isa. 13:6–9; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:18–19). But the language used is applied to multiple events, from the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. 13:5) to the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45–54) to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:29–31). In one sense all the promises of the OT find their initial fulfillment in Christ (2Cor. 1:20) but await their consummation in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21–22). Thus, the claim that a promise has been fulfilled does not automatically imply that the promise has been exhausted. There may be additional “fulfillments” to the original promise.

The various Hebrew and Greek words that express the idea of fulfillment occur hundreds of times in the Bible, and the concept often is present even when the specific word is not. At the basic level, fulfillment indicates a relationship between two (or more) things in which the second is said to “fill up” the significance of the first. Frequently this takes the form of a specific promise that is said to be fulfilled when the person, object, or event referred to comes to pass. There are countless examples of this type of fulfillment, some of which even quote the specific promise that is being fulfilled. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10) are said to be fulfilled when Cyrus permits the Jews to return to the land (Ezra 1:1–4). Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1–6) fulfills the promise of a ruler who will shepherd Israel (Mic. 5:2).

But the concept of fulfillment goes beyond specific promises that are then said to be fulfilled in a particular person, object, or event. In the broadest sense of the term, one can say that the NT fulfills what the OT promises. After his resurrection, Jesus reminds his disciples, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He then provides a summary of the entire OT message: “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46–47).

Although all four Gospels describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT hope, Matthew places special emphasis on this by his use of the term “fulfill” when introducing OT quotes. He does so eleven times (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 27:9), most of which have no direct parallel in the other Gospels. In some of these examples the passage quoted from the OT specifically points forward to a future fulfillment, such as the promise in Isa. 7:14 of a child being born finding its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:23). But in other cases the OT passage said to be fulfilled does not appear to be a prediction at all in its original context. Commenting on Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus leaving Egypt to eventually settle in Nazareth, Matthew notes that this departure took place to fulfill “what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ ” (2:15). The quotation comes from Hos. 11:1, which says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” In its original context, Hos. 11:1 is a straightforward statement of God leading the people of Israel out of their Egyptian captivity in the exodus. There is no indication that the prophet is predicting anything at all; he is instead recounting historical fact. But in that historical event Matthew sees an anticipation of Jesus’ own exodus out of Egypt. The correspondence between the two events rests in recognizing that just as Israel was God’s son (cf. Exod. 4:22), so too Jesus is the Son of God (Matt. 3:17), albeit in a much more profound way.

Fulfillment often takes place in stages. An example of this is seen in the numerous promises surrounding the day of the Lord. On the one hand, the prophets speak of the day of the Lord in a way that anticipates a catastrophic event in the near future (Isa. 13:6–9; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:18–19). But the language used is applied to multiple events, from the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. 13:5) to the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45–54) to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:29–31). In one sense all the promises of the OT find their initial fulfillment in Christ (2Cor. 1:20) but await their consummation in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21–22). Thus, the claim that a promise has been fulfilled does not automatically imply that the promise has been exhausted. There may be additional “fulfillments” to the original promise.

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit forassociation 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’sSpirit (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).

Withreference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like hisuniqueness, 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’sdwelling 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 whosurround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

Acorollary 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 anassociated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied topeople and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly orimplicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never“from” something.

Thesymbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, thetabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3),and everything associated with them, are holy and the means wherebyGod’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God.For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these toomust be holy (Lev. 11:44–45; Heb. 12:14).

TheOT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean andclean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting atransition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People,places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration orsanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence(Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

Holinessmay be an attribute of places marked by God’s presence (Exod.3:5; Ps. 43:3). Likewise, particular times, especially the Sabbathday (Exod. 20:8), are declared holy.

God’sfaithful 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, andof 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 tensionbetween the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holinessof its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended toact as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

Theprophet Zechariah envisions a time when the distinctions between holyand common will be meaningless (Zech. 14:20–21). While vestigesof the symbolic language of holiness remain in the NT (e.g., the“holy city” in Matt. 27:53), after the death andresurrection of Christ the NT no longer operates with the symbolicholiness of the OT. Rather, this language is appropriated to explainwhat true holiness entails in the lives of God’s people (Rom.12:1; Eph. 2:21). All Christians are holy (“saints” [Gk.hagioi] means “holy ones” [e.g., Rom. 1:7]), including insome sense the members of a believer’s family (1Cor.7:14). The holiness of God’s people is both definitive, byvirtue of the saving work of Christ (Heb. 13:12), and progressive, byeliciting, and empowering through his Holy Spirit, holy and righteousliving (Rom. 6:19; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Both divine initiativeand human activity with regard to holiness may be seen in texts suchas Lev. 20:8; Heb. 10:14. The objective of Christian discipline isthat we might share God’s holiness (Heb. 12:10).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase ’immanu’el, which means “God is with us.” This name is a reminder of God’s presence, and although the name “Immanuel” appears in the Bible only a few times (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 8:10), the theme of God’s presence is one of the most prevalent in Scripture.

In Isa. 7 the prophet Isaiah tells King Ahaz not to fear the two kings who threaten him, but to trust in God. In fact, Isaiah proclaims, God will give a sign to Ahaz. An unnamed “virgin” (Heb. ’almah, which normally means “young, unmarried woman”) will conceive and give birth to a child, whose name will be “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Interestingly, there is no mention of a father. Before this child grows old enough to know right from wrong, Isaiah continues, God will destroy both of the kings who threaten Ahaz (7:15–16). At this point, the sign of Immanuel appears to refer to a child born during the time of Ahaz as a sign to him of God’s power and ability to deliver.

Yet, this promised child seems to be rather unusual. In Isa. 8:8 God declares that Immanuel owns all the land of Judah, indicating that he is no mere unknown or obscure child. Furthermore, in 8:10 victory is declared for Judah because “God is with us [’immanu’el].” The use of this phrase is a wordplay on the name “Immanuel,” suggesting that the sign of a child named “Immanuel” may point to something beyond just a child in Ahaz’s time.

In the LXX, the word used for the young, unmarried woman in Isa. 7:14, parthenos, explicitly meant “virgin.” Using this Greek word, Matthew declares that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). Thus, it appears that Isa. 7:14 was fulfilled twice, or at least that the prophecy contained a dual aspect. It was fulfilled first in a minimal way during the reign of Ahaz and then ultimately by the virgin birth of Jesus.

Matthew, of course, is saying much more than that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isa. 7:14: Jesus embodies the presence of God. The presence of God is a major theological theme running throughout the Bible. Matthew opens his Gospel with the proclamation that Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel, “God is with us” (1:23), and he closes with Jesus’ statement “I am with you always” (28:20), a promise of Jesus Christ’s empowering presence. The Gospel of John opens with the same theme, stating, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (1:14). Frequently in the NT, Jesus is connected to the powerful presence of God. At the climactic end of the biblical story the focus is once again on presence, as the “Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” once again dwell with God’s people in the garden (Rev. 21–22), the ultimate example of “God is with us.”

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’Purpose and Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

The act of giving a specific term of identification tosomeone or something. Naming is a notable feature of biblicalnarrative. From the beginning, God orders and structures creation bynaming the things that he makes, from the elements of nature tohumankind (Gen. 1:5, 10; 5:2). As his ruling representative, Adam isgranted the privilege of naming the animals (1:27–28; 2:19–20).He later names his wife, both as a being and as a person (2:23;3:20). Eve, in turn, names Seth after losing Abel to the murderousrage of his brother Cain (4:25). With the naming of people, what isnotable is that in each case the name clearly is chosen for a reason:the name has significance for the person, revealing somethingsignificant about character, role, or destiny.

Thepatriarchal narratives of Genesis are notable in this regard. In Gen.17 both Abram and Sarai receive name changes, to the more familiar“Abraham” and “Sarah.” No particularexplanation is given in her case, but “Abraham” isexplained in terms of God’s promise of numerous descendants,“father of many” (17:5). Later in the conversation, Goddecrees that the name of the promised son will be “Isaac.”The name means “he laughs,” and it is chosen initially inresponse to Abraham’s laughter at the idea of having a son inhis old age (17:17, 19). When Isaac is born, Sarah describes it asthe laughter of joyful surprise (21:6–7). But when Ishmaelengages in some less innocent “laughing” about Isaac, itbecomes the occasion of Ishmael’s expulsion along with hismother (21:8–14). In the next generation, Esau is named for hisred, hairy appearance—something that will be important on alater occasion (25:25; 27:5–23). His twin brother’s nameis both more symbolic and more suggestive of character, as Esauhimself acknowledges (25:26; 27:34–36).

TheNT also has its cases of notable naming. The apostles expressappreciation for the edifying spirit of a believer named “Joseph”by calling him “Barnabas,” which means “son ofencouragement” (Acts 4:36). Likewise, Jesus marks Simon’srecognition of his identity by naming him “Peter” (Aram.Cepha; Gk. Petros—both mean “rock”). Jesus himselfis the supreme example of having been given a meaningful name (Matt.1:20–21), though it should be noted that his Hebrew name,“Joshua” (yehoshua’, “Yahweh saves/issalvation”), was common in Jewish culture. This is why othersusually referred to him by some descriptive phrase, such as “Jesusof Nazareth”or “Jesus, who is called Messiah.”

Placesalso receive names, often as a result of some encounter with God.Jacob gives the name “Bethel” to the spot where God firstspoke with him (Gen. 28:16–19). The names that Moses gives tosome locations of the wilderness journey are tragically indicative ofIsrael’s frequent disobedience during that time (Exod. 17:1–17;Num. 11:3–5, 18–20, 31–34).

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

The act of giving a specific term of identification tosomeone or something. Naming is a notable feature of biblicalnarrative. From the beginning, God orders and structures creation bynaming the things that he makes, from the elements of nature tohumankind (Gen. 1:5, 10; 5:2). As his ruling representative, Adam isgranted the privilege of naming the animals (1:27–28; 2:19–20).He later names his wife, both as a being and as a person (2:23;3:20). Eve, in turn, names Seth after losing Abel to the murderousrage of his brother Cain (4:25). With the naming of people, what isnotable is that in each case the name clearly is chosen for a reason:the name has significance for the person, revealing somethingsignificant about character, role, or destiny.

Thepatriarchal narratives of Genesis are notable in this regard. In Gen.17 both Abram and Sarai receive name changes, to the more familiar“Abraham” and “Sarah.” No particularexplanation is given in her case, but “Abraham” isexplained in terms of God’s promise of numerous descendants,“father of many” (17:5). Later in the conversation, Goddecrees that the name of the promised son will be “Isaac.”The name means “he laughs,” and it is chosen initially inresponse to Abraham’s laughter at the idea of having a son inhis old age (17:17, 19). When Isaac is born, Sarah describes it asthe laughter of joyful surprise (21:6–7). But when Ishmaelengages in some less innocent “laughing” about Isaac, itbecomes the occasion of Ishmael’s expulsion along with hismother (21:8–14). In the next generation, Esau is named for hisred, hairy appearance—something that will be important on alater occasion (25:25; 27:5–23). His twin brother’s nameis both more symbolic and more suggestive of character, as Esauhimself acknowledges (25:26; 27:34–36).

TheNT also has its cases of notable naming. The apostles expressappreciation for the edifying spirit of a believer named “Joseph”by calling him “Barnabas,” which means “son ofencouragement” (Acts 4:36). Likewise, Jesus marks Simon’srecognition of his identity by naming him “Peter” (Aram.Cepha; Gk. Petros—both mean “rock”). Jesus himselfis the supreme example of having been given a meaningful name (Matt.1:20–21), though it should be noted that his Hebrew name,“Joshua” (yehoshua’, “Yahweh saves/issalvation”), was common in Jewish culture. This is why othersusually referred to him by some descriptive phrase, such as “Jesusof Nazareth”or “Jesus, who is called Messiah.”

Placesalso receive names, often as a result of some encounter with God.Jacob gives the name “Bethel” to the spot where God firstspoke with him (Gen. 28:16–19). The names that Moses gives tosome locations of the wilderness journey are tragically indicative ofIsrael’s frequent disobedience during that time (Exod. 17:1–17;Num. 11:3–5, 18–20, 31–34).

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.

Sinin the Bible

OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.

InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).

Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definitionand Terminology

Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.

1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).

2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.

3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).

4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.

Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).

Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).

Scopeand Consequences

Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.

Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.

Conclusion

Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”

The traditional designation “virgin birth” refersto the supernatural conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit,apart from sexual relations. Technically, one should speak of a“virginal conception,” since Jesus was virginallyconceived but was born normally. The virgin “birth” isconsidered by some theologians to be the means by which the twonatures of Jesus Christ are preserved: his humanity stems from thefact that he was born of the virgin Mary, while his deity proceedsfrom the reality that God was his father and he was conceived by theHoly Spirit. The later Apostles’ Creed formulates the matterthis way: Jesus Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit andborn of the Virgin Mary.” Here, three aspects of the virginbirth are discussed: (1)the virgin birth and Isa. 7:14; (2)thevirgin birth in the NT; (3)the historicity of the virgin birth.

Isaiah7:14. Isaiah7:14 reads, “The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, andshall call his name Immanuel” (ESV). Two key issues areinvolved in Isaiah’s prophecy. First, should the Hebrew word’almahbe translated as “virgin” or as “young woman”?While the Hebrew term does not necessarily mean a virgin, but only ayoung woman of marriageable age, the Greek term parthenos used in theLXX of Isa. 7:14 and quoted in Matt. 1:23 has stronger connotationsof virginity. Second, when was Isa. 7:14 fulfilled? Most likely theOT text was partially fulfilled in Isaiah’s day (with referenceto King Ahaz’s unnamed son or to Isaiah’s sonMaher-Shalal-Hash-Baz [Isa. 8:1]) but found its ultimate fulfillmentin Jesus, as Matt. 1:23 points out.

NewTestament. Theinfancy narratives recorded in Matt. 1–2 and in Luke 1–2provide the story line for Jesus’ virginal conception: (1)Marywas a virgin engaged to Joseph (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27, 34; 2:5);(2)she was found to be pregnant while still engaged to Joseph,a conception produced by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35;cf. Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:34); (3)only after Jesus wasborn did Mary and Joseph have sexual relations (Matt. 1:24–25).Even though there is nothing in these narratives like the hypostaticunion formulated in the later church creeds, it is clear that Matthewand Luke in some way associate Jesus’ deity and humanity withthe virginal conception. Other NT texts are considered by some aspossible references to the virgin birth. John 1:14 states that “theWord became flesh,” which certainly highlights Jesus’ twonatures—deity and humanity—but does not therebyexplicitly mention the virgin birth. Paul does something similar inRom. 1:3 (“[God’s] Son, who as to his earthly life was adescendant of David”), Gal. 4:4 (“God sent his Son, bornof a woman”), and Phil. 2:6–11 (Jesus existed in the formof God but took on human likeness). Beyond these passages, there islittle else regarding the virgin birth stated or alluded to in theNT.

Historicity.Twoimportant considerations indicate that the virgin birth of Jesus wasa historical event and not a mythic legend. First, the simplicity ofthe descriptions of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, whencompared with the fantastic details found in contemporary accounts ofGreco-Roman and Jewish supernatural births, bespeak the authenticityof the NT documents. For example, one can cite the stories of thesupernatural birth of Alexander the Great in Greek sources and ofNoah in extrabiblical Jewish sources. In addition, secondary detailssuch as the mention of Anna’s father, Phanuel (Luke 2:36), addnothing significant to the account and thus appear to bematter-of-fact reporting by an eyewitness. Second, the commonalitiesbetween Matthew and Luke regarding the virgin birth of Jesus attestto its historicity.

Inconclusion, while the NT does not contain extensive informationconcerning the virgin birth of Jesus, there is sufficient evidence tosupport its historicity.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

.A person from whom a person or group has descended in eithera physical or a spiritual sense. For Israel, the concept of one’sancestors and their God was of great significance in determining bothidentity and religious practice. Biblical concepts such as covenantand promise primarily found expression in the OT in terms of theancestral agreements established with God (Deut. 6:10; 9:5; 29:13;30:20; cf. Gen. 12:1–7). The effect of ancestors on one’sspiritual condition could have either positive or negativeimplications (Exod. 3:13; Josh. 24:14–15; 2 Tim. 1:5; Heb.11). The people of Israel are portrayed as suffering judgment bothfor their sins and for those of their ancestors, but also they couldfind repentance and hope because of the same relationships (Zech.1:4–6; Mal. 1:1–5).

Thereare thirteen primary genealogical lists in the OT and two in the NT,although there are numerous passages that include more limitedlineages to identify an individual. Genealogical lists could alsofunction to engender a notion of commonality of relationship outsidesingle family lines, such as when extended family genealogies aregiven (Gen. 10; 25:12–18; 36:1–30). For priests andkings, it was of utmost importance to be able to establish ancestralidentity. This necessity may have played a role in at least twodiscussions of Jesus. His genealogical lists in both Matt. 1 and Luke3 established his claim to the line of David, and his spiritualancestry in the person of Melchizedek in Heb. 7 granted him superiorstatus to the priesthood of Levi.

Worshipof ancestors, or the related but distinct cult of the dead, wascommon in nearly every culture with which Israel interacted and mayhave even found expression in popular practice among Israelites, asevidenced by the apparent leaving of gifts at several tomb locationsthroughout Palestine (cf. Ezek. 43:7–9). However, the biblicalrecord is consistent throughout that such practices were prohibited.Among laws centered on the topic of ancestral worship wererestrictions on consulting the dead at all (Deut. 18:11), givingofferings to the dead (Deut. 26:14), self-laceration for the dead(Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6), and seeking ancestors to foretell the future(Isa. 8:19; 65:4–8).

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

The holiday marking the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem ofJudea in approximately 4 BC (Matt. 1:18–2:12; Luke 2:1–20).

AlthoughChristmas is celebrated on December 25 in the West, neither this datenor the Eastern alternatives (January 6 or 7) are established inScripture. Indeed, the description of shepherds in the fields withtheir flocks argues against them, since in Judea such activity doesnot generally occur in the winter months.

December25 was first noted as the birthday of Jesus in the Chronography of354, a Roman document also known as the Philocalian Calendar, whichincorporates an older reference dating from 336. Close to the wintersolstice, December 25 has pre-Christian significance as theobservation of the birth of Mithra, a Persian sun deity dating to thesixth century BC, and as the end of the feast of Saturnalia (December17–24), a ribald agricultural festival. It was co-opted as theobservance of Jesus’ nativity in the early fourth century whenConstantine made Christianity a recognized religion in the RomanEmpire. He hoped to ease the transition from pagan practice toChristian by pouring new meaning into existing festivities. The word“Christmas” first appeared in 1038 in Old English,Cristes Maesse, meaning “Christ’s Festival Day.” Bythe seventeenth century, however, the pagan aspects of Christmas hadtrumped biblical piety. Carnival excess ruled, and the holiday wasstaunchly opposed by Puritans for generations.

Althoughour modern Christmas customs have traceable European roots, theirappearance and popularization in the United States are more afunction of sociological changes in nineteenth-century New York. TheChristmas tree, for example, though of German origin, was introducedthrough literature first, and by the 1830s it had quickly caught onas an appealing tool to help domesticate a boisterous street holiday.Santa Claus evolved among the merchant class Knickerbockers andeventually took recognizable form in Clement Clarke Moore’s1822 poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas.”

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

A biblical genealogy is a listing of names showing theinterrelationships of individuals, clans, or nations. They are foundmainly, though not exclusively, in the Pentateuch, Ezra-Nehemiah, andChronicles. The arrangement of names in such listings is most oftenforward in time, from ancestor to descendant (e.g., Ruth 4:18–22,tracing a family line down to David), and this is the genealogyproper. At other times, names are listed in the opposite direction,backward in time, from the individual to ancestor (e.g., Ezra 7:1–5,where Ezra’s ancestry is traced back to Aaron “the chiefpriest”), and this is, strictly speaking, a pedigree. Theunusually lengthy pedigree (even by biblical standards) of Ezra “thepriest” is an effective way to highlight his temple interestwhen he is first introduced to the reader. The pedigree of 1Chron.6:33–47 shows the impeccable Levitical credentials of Heman,Asaph, and Ethan, who served before the ark of the covenant under theleadership of David. Genealogical information is always supplied fora reason.

Typesof Genealogies

Thetwo main terms used in the OT are toledot (“genealogicalhistory”; e.g., Gen. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; NIV: “account”)and yakhas (“genealogical record”; only in Neh. 7:5, butthe related verb, “to register by genealogy,” occurs inEzra 2// Neh. 7 and elsewhere). In Ezra-Nehemiah the supplyingof a credible genealogy is necessary for acceptance as an Israelite(Ezra 2:59–60) or for securing priestly privileges (Ezra2:61–63). The concern is not racial purity as such, but ratherIsrael’s theological integrity (Ezra 9:1–2). Thepejorative references to “genealogies” in 1Tim. 1:4and Titus 3:9 do not condemn the OT lists but instead reject theconcocted genealogies in the mythic speculations of Jewishintertestamental books such as Jubilees.

Lineageis almost invariably traced through the male line. Most often inbiblical narrative an individual is supplied only with a patronym(e.g., “Isaiah son of Amoz” [Isa. 1:1]), or sometimesthree generations are specified (e.g., “Bezalel son of Uri, theson of Hur” [Exod. 35:30]). In Exod. 6:16–20 theforeshortened genealogy of Aaron and Moses is not to be understood assaying that there were only four generations between them and Levi.

Somegenealogies involve ethnic and geographical relations—forexample, between the nations of the ancient world in Gen. 11, andbetween Israel and surrounding peoples in Gen. 19:37–38;25:1–4. In lists, the father-son relation can be broader thanimmediate descent and may refer to remote ancestors (grandson,great-grandson, etc.) (e.g., Ezra 5:1; cf. Zech. 1:1).

TheImportance of Genealogies

Genealogiesare an important feature of biblical storytelling. The modern readershould not simply leap over them, and the works of J.R.R.Tolkien show that genealogy is not dead in literary terms. When abiblical genealogy is supplied, it has a narratorial role. Itcontributes something essential to the presentation of the biblicalwriter. For example, 1Chron. 1 is not a bare listing of namesbut rather, beginning with Adam, provides a world context for thehistory of Israel that follows; and 1Chron. 2–9emphasizes the twelve-tribal structure of God’s people, thuspreventing the misapprehension that Chronicles is just a history ofthe southern kingdom of Judah. Also, lists are usually not justnames; they include thematically significant material contributing tothe overall message of the particular book—for example, thetechnological advances of Cain’s descendants told in Gen.4:17–22 and the military exploits recounted in 1Chron.5:18–22.

Theten-generation genealogy of Gen. 5 bridges the antediluvian and thedeluge eras. The repeated refrain “and he died” depictsthe reign of death over the human race. Another ten-generationgenealogy joins the flood generation to Abram (Gen. 11:10–26).In this case, the deleterious effect of sin on humans is shown by thegradual decrease in human life span. There is often an element ofschema in biblical genealogies (e.g., the limitation of generationsto ten). Genesis 5 displays the convention of the seventh generation,which is deemed worthy of special attention (Enoch). There is alsothe Bible’s delight in multiples of seven—for example,the seventy nations in Gen. 10, the 3×14generational schema in Matt. 1, and the seventy members in thepedigree of Christ in Luke 3:23–38. Hence, none of thesegenealogies should be understood as comprehensive in scope; rather,they are highly selective and stylized. Their purpose is to supportand underscore the writer’s theological message.

Becauseit is rare for females to be mentioned in biblical genealogies, whenthey are there is special significance—for example, Sarai inGen. 11:29: though barren, she will become the mother of the line ofpromise; Rebekah in Gen. 22:23: she will become the wife of Isaac;the daughters of Zelophehad in Num. 26:33: their story will beelaborated in Num. 27; 36; the five women in the genealogy of Jesus(Matt. 1): several of them are non-Israelites, suggesting that Jesuscomes as the Savior of the world.

Author

Althoughstrictly anonymous, the first Gospel has always been known as“according to Matthew,” and no evidence exists that itever circulated without this name. The author is traditionally theapostle Matthew, a former tax collector (9:9). Mark (2:14) and Luke(5:27) identify him as “Levi,” probably his earlier name.This may be further established by the noticeable references to moneyin the first Gospel: the parables of the unmerciful servant (18:23)and of the daily pay of workers (20:1), the bribe paid to the guardsat the tomb to get them to lie (28:12), and Judas’s return ofthe thirty silver coins (27:5). These stories, unique to Matthew,relate the morality of money in an unequivocal way, indicatingMatthew’s own interests from his former life.

Matthew’sGospel appears first in almost every extant witness to the NT, and itwas considered the preeminent Gospel by the early church. It is theGospel most quoted by the early church fathers. Of the four Gospels,Matthew’s is most oriented toward a Jewish audience.

Sources

Acursory reading of the Gospels reveals that the first three, Matthew,Mark, and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), share much of the samematerial. Yet each has its own collection and order of events,reflecting its own theological emphasis. This is quite to ourbenefit: by examining the differences between the three Gospels, notonly do we see different facets of Jesus, but also we can discern andfilter the idiosyncrasies of each writer. If Matthew records an eventlater in his Gospel, there must be a reason consistent with hispurposes.

Mostcurrent research holds that Mark was written first and providedmaterial for both Matthew and Luke. Matthew tends to smooth out the“rough” Greek of Mark; he also compresses many of thestories, and in a few places he “fixes” passages in Markthat might have seemed unclear or offensive. Material from Mark usedby Matthew is generally narrative of Jesus’ life.

Matthewand Luke also contain similar material not found in Mark, theso-called Q material (“Q” is from the German Quelle,which means “source”). No Q document is extant. If itever existed, it may represent an oral tradition. The Q material inMatthew has strong ethical content, such as the Sermon on the Mount,many of the parables, and the Olivet Discourse. Additionally, Matthewand Luke contain material unique to their own Gospels: M in Matthew,L in Luke. The M material includes the birth and infancy narratives,some of the stories surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection,and a few of the parables.

Theuse of Mark (not an apostle) by the apostle Matthew is not assurprising as it may seem. Papias reported that Mark wrote thereminiscences of Peter, a member of Jesus’ inner circle and theleader of the apostolic group. Surely Matthew would have no problemusing Mark’s Gospel as a starting point for his own.

Date

Datingthe Gospels is difficult. If Matthew borrowed from Mark, then thedate of Mark and how long it would have taken to circulate to Mattheware important in the discussion. The first convincing use of Matthewby an external author is Ignatius, early in the second century. Thisplaces Matthew in the period between the early 60s to the early 90s.

Internalevidence includes, as in most NT literature dating, Matthew’srelationship to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. If Matthewwrote after this date, we might expect to see this reflected in somepassages, especially in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus’ prophecyof the Jewish war. The mention of a city being burned in retributionin 22:7 is casual enough to suggest that Matthew did not know of thishappening to Jerusalem. There also are many references to the templethat might have merited a mention of its subsequent loss.

Themention of the temple tax in 17:24 is important. Before AD 70, payingthe tax supported the Jewish temple and showed solidarity withIsrael. After AD 70, the revenue was diverted to the temple ofJupiter in Rome. Jews were required to continue paying under duressand considered it support of idolatry. Had this been Matthew’sworld, he likely would have explained this critical point to hisreaders.

Argumentsfor a late date include references to the church (Matthew alone amongthe Gospel writers uses the term ekklēsia), possibly indicatingan interest in church orderthat developed later; historical tensions between the church and theJews, which only peaked in AD 85; and thoughts of a later date forMark. For some, Matthew’s account of Jesus’ predictionsof the destruction of Jerusalem is so vivid that it would have tohave been written afterward. Many consider the theology of Matthew sosophisticated that it would require a later date.

Externalevidence includes the early church tradition that Matthew was writtenearly, though part of this thinking is that Matthew was written firstof the Synoptics. Still, an early date for Matthew seems the best,though the evidence is far from conclusive.

Structure

Matthew’sliterary pointers do not necessarily align with his themes, makingfor a rich, complex structure that is hard to outline. The followingare some of the structures that scholars have proposed.

Bydiscourse.Matthew has five clear sections of Jesus’ discourses, set apartby a concluding phrase along the lines of “when Jesus hadfinished saying these things” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).The five discourses alternate with related narratives of Jesus’deeds. These discourses should not be thought of as intact, recordedsermons; they are compilations of Jesus’ teachings assembled byMatthew. The parallels in the other Gospels of this material differ:some of it is together as Matthew has it, but much of it is scatteredin the other accounts. Matthew organized his material into types ofstories and types of ministry by Jesus. Early on, Jesus is theethical teacher; later, he is the stern lecturer warning Israel ofimpending judgment.

Bystory line.Another proposed structure concerns the story line of the Gospel.Matthew twice uses the concluding phrase “from that time onJesus began to...” (4:17; 16:21). But thesetwo instances, particularly 16:21, are in the middle of the narrativeline and cannot be thought of as major literary structural markers.It is likely that Matthew uses this phrase to notify his readers of anew phase of the story, and possibly of a new approach in ministry byJesus.

Bygeography.This concept revolves around the geography and movement of Jesus fromhis birth, through the ministry in Galilee, around Galilee, and toJerusalem.

Outline

Thefollowing outline offers a thematic organization of Matthew’sGospel:

I.The Miraculous Beginnings of Jesus (1:1–4:11)

II.Ethical Teachings and Miracles (4:12–10:42)

III.Confrontation and Reactions (11:1–16:20)

IV.The Messiah Must Suffer (16:21–20:28)

V.Jesus Claims Authority and Receives Praise (20:29–25:46)

VI.The Death of Jesus (26:1–27:66)

VII.The Resurrection of Jesus (28:1–28:20)

I.The miraculous beginnings of Jesus (1:1–4:11).Jesus’ genealogy and childhood show him to be the fulfillmentof OT prophecy. His baptism demonstrates this fulfillment; his fortydays of testing in the desert identify him with Israel.

II.Ethical teachings and miracles (4:12–10:42).This section begins with a geographical change, as Jesus returns toGalilee. Having instructed his disciples, he sends them out as anextension of his own mission.

III.Confrontation and reactions (11:1–16:20).This section also involves a change of geography. Jesus first isquestioned by John’s disciples, then by the Pharisees, andfinally by the people in his own town. The questions are resolved byPeter’s confession.

IV.The messiah must suffer (16:21–20:28).This is the third section that begins “from that time on Jesusbegan to....” Jesus explains to his disciplesthat he will die at the hands of the Jews but be raised on the thirdday. This section includes the transfiguration and many parablesconcerning judgment and reward. The climax is at the end, when Jesusdeclares that he has come “to give his life as a ransom formany.”

V.Jesus claims authority and receives praise (20:29–25:46).Another geographical shift occurs, as Jesus and his disciples leaveJericho. Jesus acknowledges the title “Lord, Son of David,”cleanses the temple, and argues with the Pharisees about the sourceof his authority. The parables concern sonship and responses toauthority. The Pharisees try to entrap Jesus. Jesus teaches aboutauthority, then rebukes the Pharisees. Chapter 24 describes theconsequences of the ultimate rejection of authority. The climax isthe parable of the sheep and the goats.

VI.The death of Jesus (26:1–27:66). Matthew’sGospel has built-in intensity up to the passion narrative. Thissection builds again within itself, from the anointing of Jesus inBethany to the hush as the tomb is closed and sealed.

VII.The resurrection of Jesus (28:1–28:20).The accounts of the resurrection and postresurrection appearances arebrief but significant and contain several details not found in theother Synoptics.

TheUnique Contributions of Matthew

Amongthe unique contributions of Matthew are his genealogy of Jesus (whichdiffers significantly from Luke’s); the birth/infancy narrativeof 1:18–2:23, which includes the rec-ord of the angel appearingto Joseph, the magi from the East, the slaughter of the innocents,and the flight to Egypt; the Great Commission, where Jesus commandshis followers to “go and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son andofthe Holy Spirit” (28:19); and the Sermon on the Mount (chaps.5–7), the largest block of the teachings of Jesus in the NT(Matthew contains large blocks of Jesus’ teaching in the otherdiscourses as well).

Useof the Old Testament

Matthew’suse of the OT is remarkable. Matthew is concerned with showing Jesusas the fulfillment of the OT and God’s salvation history. Thiscan be seen in the so-called fulfillment quotations (1:22–23;2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35;21:4–5; 27:9–10; see also 2:5–6; 13:14; 26:54, 56,and 3:3; 22:31–32) as well as in the narrative portions of thebook, particularly in the sweeping statement of 26:56: “Thishas all taken place that the writings of the prophets might befulfilled.”

Matthewimmediately appeals to the OT in recounting the genealogy of Jesus.He divides the history of Israel into three eras: the firstculminates in David, the second with the exile—clearly two ofthe most significant turning points in Israel’s history—thethird in Jesus, the Christ.

Thequote “Out of Egypt I called my son” (2:15), from Hos.11:1, is an excellent example of Matthew’s commitment tofulfillment. The passage in Hosea clearly is not looking forward tothis verse, but Matthew employs this short sentence to identify Jesusas the fulfillment of Israel and uses the return from Egypt of theholy family to illustrate the parallels in Jesus’ life with theexperience of the Jews. Matthew’s use of the OT here, and ingeneral, follows ancient, particularly Jewish, interpretiveconventions.

Matthewcontains a number of OT quotations not found in the other Synoptics.These appear generally as asides from Matthew himself—his ownreflections, as it were, not the words of Jesus. Matthew clearly seesthe relationship between Jesus and the OT in both directions: Jesusis the total fulfillment of the OT, and the OT is deeply concernedwith pointing the way to Jesus.

Matthewthen applies OT passages to the life of Jesus: Jesus is the virgin’sson in Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:22–23), the one coming from Bethlehemto rule over Israel in Mic. 5:2 (Matt. 2:5–6), and the soncalled out of Egypt in Hos. 11:1 (Matt. 2:15); the slaughter ofinfants reflects the fall of Judah seen in Jer. 31:15 (Matt.2:17–18); and Jesus is the great light on Zebulun and Naphtaliof Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt. 4:13–16).

Jesus’Relationship to Jewish Leaders

Matthew’sGospel is almost universally negative toward the religious leaders,even where parallel passages do not reflect this antagonism (compareMatt. 23:37 with Luke 13:31). Matthew records many groups of leaders:teachers of the law (scribes), Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests,and elders; he often combines terms, “scribes and Pharisees”being his favorite combination. Matthew portrays the Pharisees as themost hostile to Jesus, identifying them as a “brood of vipers”(3:7).

Yet,the Gospel of Matthew is far from being an anti-Jewish work. Jesus isthe fulfillment of the OT; he was sent “only to the lost sheepof Israel” (15:24); people praise the God of Israel for hishealing demonstrations. Matthew’s point is that it is Israel’sleaders and those who reject their Messiah who are bringing judgmentupon themselves.

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman orvirgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used torefer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a youngwoman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod.22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman wasexpected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, avirgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1Kings1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4).The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,”“maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,”“servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17;Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave whois of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth isna’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl”(Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant”(Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). Thefifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod.2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden”(Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

Inthe NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden”in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male orfemale (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “ayoung girl,” “maiden,”or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a“female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servantgirl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a“girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25).Nymphē refersto a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53;Rev. 21:2).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.

Sinin the Bible

OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.

InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).

Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definitionand Terminology

Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.

1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).

2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.

3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).

4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.

Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).

Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).

Scopeand Consequences

Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.

Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.

Conclusion

Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman orvirgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used torefer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a youngwoman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod.22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman wasexpected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, avirgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1Kings1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4).The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,”“maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,”“servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17;Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave whois of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth isna’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl”(Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant”(Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). Thefifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod.2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden”(Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

Inthe NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden”in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male orfemale (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “ayoung girl,” “maiden,”or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a“female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servantgirl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a“girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25).Nymphē refersto a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53;Rev. 21:2).

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman orvirgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used torefer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a youngwoman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod.22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman wasexpected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, avirgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1Kings1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4).The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,”“maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,”“servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17;Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave whois of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth isna’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl”(Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant”(Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). Thefifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod.2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden”(Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

Inthe NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden”in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male orfemale (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “ayoung girl,” “maiden,”or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a“female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servantgirl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a“girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25).Nymphē refersto a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53;Rev. 21:2).

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’Purpose and Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in theextreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea ofGalilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, thebirthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2Kings 14:25),and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not farwas the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt andultimately the trading network that linked India, China, centralAsia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The village was perched1,150 feet above sea level, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, withseveral terraces for agriculture cut into the mountain. A Nazarenecould look south across the grand Plain of Esdraelon, west to MountCarmel on the Mediterranean coast, east to nearby Mount Tabor, andnorth to snowcapped Mount Hermon. The community, whose population mayhave averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture.Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, andwine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oilstorage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazarethappears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the secondcenturies BC, until it was resettled during the reign of JohnHyrcanus (134–104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of armyveterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was adescendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible(Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arabcity in Israel.

AlthoughJesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and hisfollowers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ familycontinued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene”probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in theOT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name“Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription inCaesarea Maritima.

In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in theextreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea ofGalilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, thebirthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2Kings 14:25),and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not farwas the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt andultimately the trading network that linked India, China, centralAsia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The village was perched1,150 feet above sea level, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, withseveral terraces for agriculture cut into the mountain. A Nazarenecould look south across the grand Plain of Esdraelon, west to MountCarmel on the Mediterranean coast, east to nearby Mount Tabor, andnorth to snowcapped Mount Hermon. The community, whose population mayhave averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture.Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, andwine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oilstorage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazarethappears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the secondcenturies BC, until it was resettled during the reign of JohnHyrcanus (134–104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of armyveterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was adescendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible(Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arabcity in Israel.

AlthoughJesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and hisfollowers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ familycontinued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene”probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in theOT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name“Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription inCaesarea Maritima.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

The presence of God is one of the most significant themes inthe Bible. At the very heart of worshiping God and having arelationship with him is experiencing his presence. Related themessuch as God’s power and glory are also inextricablyinterconnected to his presence.

OldTestament

Thebiblical story begins with humankind experiencing and enjoying God’spresence in a very personal way, as God walks with Adam and Eve inthe garden. Adam and Eve, however, soon disobey God and are thusdriven out of the garden and away from the close, intimate presenceof God (Gen. 3:22–24). Throughout the rest of Scripture, Godunfolds his plan to restore this lost relationship, a relationshipthat centers on his presence.

AlthoughGod makes his presence known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Genesis,it is in Exodus that the presence of God becomes even more central tothe story. When God first calls Moses, he promises his powerfulpresence, declaring, “I will be with you” (Exod. 3:12).The power of God’s presence is revealed as God guides andprotects the fleeing Israelites in the form of a pillar of cloud byday and a pillar of fire by night (13:21–22). The presence ofGod also plays a critical role in the formal covenant relationshipthat God makes with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19). At the heart ofthe covenant is a threefold statement by God: “I will be yourGod”; “you will be my people”; “I will dwellin your midst” (cf. Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:11–12). Followingup on his promise to dwell in their midst, God next gives the peopleexplicit instructions on how to build the tabernacle, the place wherehe will dwell (Exod. 25:8–9). Throughout the latter chapters ofExodus, God’s glory is clearly associated with his presence(33:12–23; 40:34–38); in fact, God’s presence andglory are nearly synonymous.

God’spresence resides in the tabernacle until Solomon builds the temple inJerusalem (1Kings 6–7). At that time, the presence andglory of God then fill the holy place of the temple and dwell there.Over the next four hundred years, however, Israel and Judahrepeatedly abandon God and turn to worshiping idols. The peoplerepeatedly refuse to repent and to listen to God’s prophets.Eventually, therefore, their idolatrous sin and terrible socialinjustices drive God out of their midst. Ezekiel 8–10 describesthis somber, momentous event as the glory and presence of God departfrom the temple. Before long, as the prophets warned, the Babylonianscapture Jerusalem and destroy both the city and the empty temple. Itis significant to remember that when the temple is later rebuiltduring the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the presence and glory of Goddo not come back to fill the new temple. Thus, from the departure ofGod in Ezek. 10 until the arrival of Jesus Christ, the Jews livewithout the powerful presence of God dwelling in their midst.

Althoughthe prophets had warned Israel and Judah that they would lose thepresence of God as part of the imminent judgment, they also promiseda powerful and glorious restoration of God’s presence in themessianic future. Furthermore, both Ezekiel and Joel promise that Godwill actually put his Spirit directly within his people (Ezek.36:26–28; Joel 2:28). No longer limited to the holy of holiesin the temple, under the new covenant the presence of God willactually indwell each of his people.

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the coming of Jesus is clearly identified as the newmanifestation of God’s presence that was foretold in theprophets (Matt. 1:22–23; John 1:14). Jesus’ entry intothe temple is highly significant, therefore, because it signals areturn of the presence of God to the temple after an absence of oversix hundred years (Matt. 21:12–17; John 2:12–24).Ironically, in the temple Jesus encounters only hostility andhypocritical worship; the presence of God is rejected once again.

Afterthe death and resurrection of Jesus, the Holy Spirit falls on hisfollowers, filling them with God’s powerful presence (Acts2:1–13), thus fulfilling the prophecies of Ezekiel and Joel.This new presence of God does not come to dwell in the temple;rather, it comes upon believers to dwell within them in a much morepersonal and relational way.

Asthe biblical story reaches its culmination at the end of the book ofRevelation, God declares, “God’s dwelling place is nowamong the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be hispeople, and God himself will be with them and be their God”(21:3). The story has gone full circle: God has returned his peopleto the garden and come to dwell in their midst so that they can enjoyhis wonderful presence eternally.

The term “salvation” is the broadest one used torefer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about byhumankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one ofthe central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis throughRevelation.

OldTestament

Inmany places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued fromphysical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility ofretribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, Ipray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). Theactions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7;47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray forsalvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss.17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).

Relatedto this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its kingwere saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus,whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to theEgyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army(Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history ofIsrael, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether througha judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or evena shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).

Butthese examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritualcomponent as well. God did not save his people from physical dangeras an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to savethem from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation fromsin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does notprovide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearestplaces that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa.40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesiedreturn are seen as the physical manifestation of the much morefundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address thatfar greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servantwould once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa.52:13–53:12).

NewTestament

Asin the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescuedfrom physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being savedfrom various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor.1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fiercestorm, Jesus’ disciplescry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”(Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospelsand Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō,used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman withthe hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road(Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō.The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgivingsomeone’ssins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost fromtheir sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holisticsalvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the newheaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensivedescriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people fromtheir sins (see below).

Components

Inseveral passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term forthe totality of what God has done for his people in and throughChrist. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that ittakes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration”refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person fromspiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7;Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of Goddeclaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis ofChrist’s sacrificial death and life of perfect obedience (Rom.3:21–5:12; Gal. 2:14–21). “Atonement”describes Christ’s payment for sin and resulting forgiveness(Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). “Redemption” capturesthe reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of theirslavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7;5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardenedrebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2Cor.5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extendsthat reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom hereconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom.8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” Godsets his people apart for his special purposes and progressivelychanges them into the image of Christ (1Cor. 1:30 ESV, NRSV,NASB; cf. Rom. 8:29). The final component is “glorification,”when God brings to completion the work of salvation by granting hispeople resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death,and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30;1Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).

Prepositionsof Salvation

Anotherway that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through thevarious prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in thefollowing list are among the more significant.

From.Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is notsurprising that Scripture describes that from which believers aresaved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all mytransgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible onlythrough Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people fromtheir sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus onthe cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death ofChrist believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10).At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus savedpeople from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result ofthese and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the dayof Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from thiscorrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimonyof Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and itsconsequences.

To/into.Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/intocertain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves,believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory ofthe children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through thecross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness andbrought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13).Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace intowhich believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’swork on their behalf (John 14:27).

By.Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to expressthe instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not bysword or spear that the Lord saves” (1Sam. 17:47). In thebroadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel(1Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by thegrace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can alsoexpress the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israelwas that it was saved from its enemies by God (Deut. 33:29; Isa.45:17). The same thing is meant when Scripture speaks of God savinghis people by his right hand (Ps. 17:7) or his name (Ps. 54:1).

Through.The consistent testimony of the Bible is that salvation comes throughfaith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have beenjustified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal.3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “butthat which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). Theremarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have beenaccomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).

In.Especially in Paul’s writings the various components ofsalvation (see above) are modified with the phrase “in Christ”or “in him.” Believers are chosen (Eph. 1:4), redeemed(Eph. 1:7), justified (Gal. 2:17), and sanctified (1Cor. 1:2)in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenlyrealms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

With.Many of the components of salvation that believers experience aresaid to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united withChrist in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4–11;Gal. 2:20). With Christ, believers have been made alive, raised up,and seated in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:13).Because of their union with Christ, believers share in hisinheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1Pet. 1:4). Eventhe very life of the believer is said to be currently “hiddenwith Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).

Tensesof Salvation

TheBible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses.Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believersthat “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he canalso speak of himself and other believers as those “who arebeing saved” (1Cor. 1:18; 2Cor. 2:15), pointing toa process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuringbelievers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2),he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’swrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).

Theuse of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet”dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, andascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. Butthe final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvationmust still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a newheaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).

Conclusion

Withouta proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of itsrebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makeslittle sense. Because sin is humanity’s greatest problem,salvation is humanity’s greatest need. Given the breadth,width, and depth of what God has done to save his people from theirsins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrewsasks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?”(2:3).

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “verygood/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to bemagnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27).Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelmingbeauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend thisparadise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply amechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been aboutcompletion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Althoughthe Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity andfemininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctionsbetween the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders areexplicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

hom*osexualintercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9;1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev.18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’screated order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness”is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4;Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous withshame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26;Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1Cor.12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic(Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters ananimal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sinand death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have noshame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposingnakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28,35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touchingor seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev.18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace tocover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To eventalk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen.9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriageand Adultery

Althoughdamaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate humanrelationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage isdefined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, notjust a promise made in private. The couple separate from theirparents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Oncethe marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. Theycannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of thecontract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This iscelebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for hisdeparture and return (John 14:1–3).

Paulcommands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen.24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7).Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, thougholder women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4).Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command thatcan be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has nocontrol. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his lifefor his people.

Theecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs,which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiomof marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num.5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

Thefirst year of marriage is especially important and is protected byexemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

Whena man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of thatpart of the family estate can result in her marrying a man fromanother family and so alienating that land. This can be resolvedeither by the injustice of eviction or by the device of leviratemarriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marriesthe widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’sname and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubinesare wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and theirmarriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rapeof a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not thevictim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by bothparties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with noblame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting hermarry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod.22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right totake the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman ofadultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitutionis an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden(Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning isheightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transformingeach believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally,marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abrammarried his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num.26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to bloodrelationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30;cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).

Polygamyoccurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is neverexplicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so asto restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as lessthan satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam.13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory forthose who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).(See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Controland Purity

Theviolation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11;Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than justphysical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf.James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. Thisestablishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) andthe availability of appropriate options (1Cor. 7:2, 5, 9).Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is aboutfailure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexualmisconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25).Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out ofconcern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modestyin dress (1Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another uprather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

Godalways provides the believer with what is necessary to resisttemptation and make the right choices (1Cor. 10:13).Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is toteach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face suchchallenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

Thegospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective.Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, callingforth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospelcall will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier toone’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill theearth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better toremain single (1Cor. 7, esp. v.26). This is also a giftof God (1Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment ofthe gospel commission.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “verygood/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to bemagnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27).Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelmingbeauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend thisparadise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply amechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been aboutcompletion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Althoughthe Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity andfemininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctionsbetween the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders areexplicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

hom*osexualintercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9;1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev.18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’screated order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness”is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4;Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous withshame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26;Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1Cor.12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic(Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters ananimal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sinand death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have noshame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposingnakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28,35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touchingor seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev.18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace tocover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To eventalk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen.9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriageand Adultery

Althoughdamaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate humanrelationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage isdefined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, notjust a promise made in private. The couple separate from theirparents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Oncethe marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. Theycannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of thecontract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This iscelebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for hisdeparture and return (John 14:1–3).

Paulcommands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen.24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7).Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, thougholder women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4).Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command thatcan be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has nocontrol. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his lifefor his people.

Theecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs,which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiomof marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num.5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

Thefirst year of marriage is especially important and is protected byexemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

Whena man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of thatpart of the family estate can result in her marrying a man fromanother family and so alienating that land. This can be resolvedeither by the injustice of eviction or by the device of leviratemarriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marriesthe widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’sname and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubinesare wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and theirmarriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rapeof a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not thevictim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by bothparties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with noblame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting hermarry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod.22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right totake the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman ofadultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitutionis an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden(Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning isheightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transformingeach believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally,marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abrammarried his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num.26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to bloodrelationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30;cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).

Polygamyoccurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is neverexplicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so asto restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as lessthan satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam.13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory forthose who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).(See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Controland Purity

Theviolation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11;Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than justphysical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf.James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. Thisestablishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) andthe availability of appropriate options (1Cor. 7:2, 5, 9).Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is aboutfailure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexualmisconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25).Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out ofconcern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modestyin dress (1Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another uprather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

Godalways provides the believer with what is necessary to resisttemptation and make the right choices (1Cor. 10:13).Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is toteach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face suchchallenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

Thegospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective.Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, callingforth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospelcall will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier toone’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill theearth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better toremain single (1Cor. 7, esp. v.26). This is also a giftof God (1Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment ofthe gospel commission.

Sonsof Jacob

Genesis29–30, 35 records the birth of the sons of Jacob, whichprovides a covenantal and family basis for the later confederation ofa dozen independent tribes of Semitic peoples. They shared a commonhistory, culture, religion, and set of traditions that served for atime to bind them together as a single nation. According to thefamily records, the tribes were named after their forebears, who wereborn in the following manner. Jacob’s first (and unloved) wife,Leah, bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, in that order. Then hisbeloved Rachel gave him her maid Bilhah, who bore Dan and Naphtali.Leah’s maid then bore Gad and Asher. Then Leah bore Issacharand Zebulun. Finally, Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin. At root, thelater history of the tribes is a family history, traceable toAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the story of the tribes begins inthe early second millennium BC.

Genesiswas written at a period considerably after the time of thepatriarchs, and thus written with the awareness that thecharacterizations of the patriarchs reflected in some way thetemperament of the individual tribes. The first story told about theactions of Jacob’s sons is how Simeon and Levi took terriblevengeance on the city of Shechem for the rape of their sister Dinah.This brought about Jacob’s rebuke. Jacob feared that thisaction would bring further retaliation upon his family (Gen. 34). Thehistory of the patriarchs comes to its high point in the story ofJoseph, an account that spans Gen. 37–50. Joseph was thebrother revealed in dreams to be elected by God to rule. Hisbrothers’ jealousy led them to seek to rid themselves of him.Reuben, the firstborn, is characterized as being the responsible one,wanting to do him no harm. But in Reuben’s absence, Judah ledthe others in selling Joseph into slavery. God was with Joseph,however, and through a series of events God made Joseph the leader ofEgypt, fulfilling the prophetic dreams.

Genesisconnects this family story with later tribal history. As propheticdreams revealed Joseph’s destiny to rule over Egypt, Jacob’sblessing in Gen. 49 reveals the destiny of the later tribes. Reubenlost his double-portion inheritance of the firstborn due to hisdishonoring his father (Gen. 35:22). This honor is tacitly conferredon Joseph in Gen. 48. Jacob said that Levi would be dispersed amongIsrael. As the priestly tribe, Levi inherited no land. Judah waspredicted to be the tribe of kings.

Wildernessand Conquest

Inthe wilderness wanderings of Israel, the campsite was organized bytribe (Num. 2). At its center was the tabernacle. The tribe of Leviformed an inner circle that surrounded it. At the entrance to thetabernacle (facing east) were the priests, the sons of Aaron. Theother divisions of Levi were the Merarites, the Gershonites, and theKohathites. These together formed the inner circle that guarded theholy place. Levi was the holiest tribe of Israel, the only tribeallowed to maintain and service God’s dwelling place. The outerperimeter of the encampment was formed by twelve tribes (the tribe ofJoseph counted as two). The eastern front was dominated by Judah andincluded Issachar and Zebulun. Dan, Asher, and Naphtali were to thenorth; Reuben, Simeon,and Gad to the south; and to the westwere Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin.

Whenthe people were on the move, the priests went in the front carryingthe ark of the covenant, following the pillar of cloud. When it cameto rest over a place, there the priests would set down the ark.Behind them followed Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. After them camethe Gershonites and the Merarites, carrying the bundled tabernacle,which they set up around the ark when the people made camp. Reuben,Simeon, and Gad took their places. Then came the Kohathites, whocarried the furnishings and vessels for the tabernacle. Next followedJoseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin. Finally, as a rearguard,came Dan, accompanied by Asher and Naphtali (Num. 10:11–33).

Oncetheir sojourn in the wilderness was over, the Israelites began toconquer the land of Canaan. Joshua allotted portions of land to eachtribe (Josh. 13–21). The descendants of Joseph constituted twotribes, Manasseh and Ephraim. Each of those two received aninheritance; thus, Joseph can be said to have received a doubleportion as though firstborn. The Jordan River formed a natural borderdown the middle of the land. To its east were parts of Manasseh, Gad,and Reuben. The other tribes were to the west. The southernmost tribewas Judah. Within Judah was Simeon, which over time was absorbed intoJudah. Levi had no land for an inheritance, since Yahweh was Levi’sinheritance—fulfilling Jacob’s prophecy of Levi andSimeon being scattered throughout Israel. Immediately north of Judahwere Dan and Benjamin. The remaining tribes were more northern still.So that they would not forget Yahweh, the tribes across the Jordanbuilt an alternative altar, not for sacrifice but rather as areminder of the true and living God (Josh. 22).

Judges

Thehistory of the conquest underscores the fact that the tribes failedto drive out the inhabitants of the land completely. Many citiesremained centers for non-Israelite culture and religion. “WhenJoshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, ‘You are now veryold, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over’”(Josh. 13:1). Judges 1 lists many peoples that continued to livealongside the Israelites.

Someof these peoples became incorporated into the mix of tribes. Rahaband her family from Jericho became integrated into the tribe of Judah(Josh. 2–6). The Gibeonites were a Canaanite people group whowere incorporated into Israel (Josh. 9). Ruth the Moabite marriedinto Judah (Ruth 4). Uriah the Hittite is an example of a Canaanitewho was fully naturalized, to the extent that he kept himselfceremonially pure and fought in God’s holy wars for Israel(2Sam. 11:11).

Thebook of Judges records the relative success or failure of each tribeto subdue and settle its own territory, and Judah consistently standsout as superior in this respect. Judges 1:2 puts Judah first. Judahprovided leadership and support to Simeon, helping it to fulfill itsown calling (1:17). After describing Judah’s success, Judg. 1delineates the other tribes’ failures.

Twostories at the end of Judges illustrate the character of Judah inthis period. Whenever Bethlehem and the other cities of Judah are thesetting, sojourners and others are treated hospitably, have no fears,and prosper. This is true also of the book of Ruth. But when folktravel elsewhere—to Moab or north to Ephraim or Benjamin—theymeet only trouble. Ephraim provided no protection to Micah when thelawless Danites overran his house (Judg. 18). Moab brought onlyfamine, barrenness, and death (Ruth 1).

Butthe worst case of all is the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19–20).There, the sin of Sodom was repeated as men surrounded the host’shouse and demanded the sojourner. All Israel took up arms to destroythe wicked city and to punish the wicked tribe. As in the first twoverses of Judges, God appointed Judah to the leadership position(Judg. 20:18). Judah then did to Benjamin what God had done to Sodom,almost wiping out the tribe.

UnitedKingdom

Nevertheless,when the tribes came together and demanded a king, the first kingwhom God gave them, Saul, was from the tribe of Benjamin (1Sam.9:17). Benjamin was situated midway between Judah of the south andthe northern tribes. Saul was successful in leading the army ofIsrael, and for a time he enjoyed God’s blessing. But in theend, God rejected him and sent Samuel the prophet to anoint aBethlehemite, David, to become the next king. However, upon Saul’sdeath, his son Ish-Bosheth (Ishbaal) claimed the throne (2Sam.2:8–9), around 1011 BC.

Therefollowed a bitter civil war between the house of Saul, backed by thenorthern tribes, and the house of David, backed by Judah. After sevenyears, David had grown stronger and Ish-Bosheth weaker, until atHebron David was finally acknowledged as king of all Israel (2Sam.5:3). David’s throne would last for centuries, until thedestruction of Jerusalem. In the NT, David’s greater son Jesusinherited the throne. Thus, Jacob’s prophecy that the tribe ofJudah would hold the scepter was fulfilled.

Thenorthern tribes did not forget that they had once fought againstDavid. David was caught in a scandal when his troops were in battle,and this may have further lessened their loyalty to him (2Sam.12). When his son Absalom rebelled and proclaimed himself king, thenorthern tribes once more allied themselves against David, andanother civil war ensued. Although David won back his throne, thedissatisfaction of the northern tribes with the house of Davidcontinued (2Sam. 15–19).

AfterDavid died, Solomon inherited his throne (971 BC). Throughout hisreign, Solomon placed burdens on the tribes. He divided his kingdominto administrative districts that did not exactly correspond to thetribal territories. Dan and Zebulun were folded into otherterritories, and Asher seemed to have been ceded to Phoenicia(1Kings 4). Thus, Solomon’s kingdom systematicallyweakened tribal identities. He laid a levy upon the tribes of Israelof thousands of men to provide a labor force for his buildingprojects (1Kings 5). Solomon built and consecrated the temple,and Jerusalem thus became both the political and religious center ofthe nation. The price for this, however, was the exacerbateddiscontent of the northern tribes.

UponSolomon’s death, the tribes confronted his son Rehoboam with ademand to lighten Solomon’s “harsh labor and ...heavy yoke” (1Kings 12:4). Rehoboam foolishly replied,“My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier.My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions”(1Kings 12:14). The northern tribes finally abandoned David’shouse and thus became an independent political and religious state(931BC).

DividedKingdom

Throughoutthe period of the divided kingdom, tribal identities became lessimportant, for their loyalties were now dominated by the reigningking of either nation. The border between the northern and thesouthern kingdoms was more or less a straight line, from Joppa on thewest near the Mediterranean, to the upper tip of the Dead Sea. Thiscut through Dan, Ephraim, and Benjamin, leaving Simeon surrounded byJudah. Jerusalem was just south of the border. The first king of thenorth, Jeroboam, placed golden calves just north of the border, inBethel, and also at the northern end of his kingdom, in the city ofDan. These served as cultic alternatives to the temple in Jerusalemfor the duration of the northern kingdom. He also modified the law ofMoses to allow for non-Levitical priests and a different liturgicalcalendar. The northern kingdom was called “Israel” (itscapital was Samaria), and the southern kingdom was called “Judah”(1Kings 12:25–33).

Forhalf a century war ensued between the two kingdoms. The two formed analliance during the reigns of Ahab and his sons. King Ahab of Israelgave his daughter Athaliah to be married to King Jehoshaphat’sson Jehoram. Together the kingdoms fought against common enemies,such as Syria and Moab. They successfully turned back the superpowerof the day, Assyria.

UnderKing Ahab and his wife Jezebel, Baal worship was aggressivelypromoted at the expense of traditional Yahwism. During this periodElijah and Elisha called the people back to the God of theirancestors, but with little success (1Kings 17–2Kings13). A small group of faithful worshipers called the “sons ofthe prophets” did remain true to Yahweh, but most of Israelabandoned him. Hosea and Amos later also warned Israel, but theircalls went unheeded. Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter Athaliahmarried Jehoram, and both of them promoted Baal worship in Judah justas in Israel. Thus, the people of Yahweh had become the people ofBaal. Jezebel’s son Joram ruled Israel upon Ahab’s death,and Athaliah’s son Ahaziah ruled Judah upon Jehoram’sdeath.

Elishasecretly anointed one of Joram’s generals, Jehu, to bring theOmride dynasty to an end in Israel and to become the next king(2Kings 9). Jehu killed both kings and Jezebel, and hedestroyed all remnants of Ahab’s family. He also slaughteredthe worshipers of Baal: “so Jehu destroyed Baal worship inIsrael” (10:28). Upon the death of her son the king, Athaliahseized the throne and did to David’s house what Jehu had doneto Ahab’s: she had every family member killed.

Butone infant survived: Joash. He was secretly raised in the temple ofYahweh until he was seven years old. Then his supporters proclaimedhim king. Athaliah cried out, “Treason! Treason!”(2Kings 11:14), and the priest Jehoiada had her put to death.The place and objects of Baal worship were destroyed, endingstate-sponsored Baalism in Judah (11:17–18).

Fallof Both Kingdoms

Afterboth kingdoms’ period of infatuation with Baal (under thedomination of the Omrides), their history as nations continued totheir final fall. In Israel, the people never gave up Jeroboam’sperversion of the law of Moses. In Judah, kings varied widely intheir regard for the law of Moses; sometimes they were faithful,sometimes very unfaithful. Meanwhile, Assyria was a constant threat.During the reign of the good king Hezekiah, Judah was overrun by theforces of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. God miraculously deliveredJerusalem (2Kings 18). However, there was no such deliverancefor Israel. Samaria was besieged for three years and finally taken(722 BC). Most of the population was deported (17:5–18). Otherpeople groups were transplanted there who learned the law of Mosesand feared Yahweh along with their own gods (17:24–41).

Atthis point in their history, only Judah remained as a politicalentity; the northern tribes of Israel were lost. After the faithfulking Hezekiah, Judah’s next significant king was Manasseh. Heis described in 2Kings as the king most offensive to God. Tocategorize him, it was not enough to compare him unfavorably withDavid (see 2Kings 14:3) or to equate him with Ahab and Jezebel(see 8:18). Rather, Manasseh was compared to the pagan nations thatJoshua had driven out of the land, which were destroyed because oftheir wickedness. Manasseh was the last straw. Because of hiscomplete abandonment to idolatry, God determined to make an end ofJerusalem (21:11–15).

Yetstill the judgment was delayed. Two years after Manasseh’sdeath, Josiah reigned on the throne of David, and early in his careerthe Book of the Law was rediscovered in the temple. Josiah called fornational repentance, and for a time Judah got rid of its idols andreturned to God (2Kings 23). But this repentance was relativelyshort-lived.

Josiahwas the last good king of Judah. God sent Judah prophets such asJeremiah, but they went unheeded. In the end, God sent KingNebuchadnezzar of Babylon up against his own beloved city, Jerusalem.Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, many of its people killed,and most of those who were left carried into exile to Babylon.

Exileand Restoration

Thefall of Jerusalem in 586 BC essentially ended the existence of thetribes as independent political entities. For the remainder of theirhistory they were, almost without exception, under the heel of greatforeign powers. At this point, they were called “Jews.”Nebuchadnezzar conscripted some of the younger men to serve in hiscourt (Dan. 1). The deportees remained in Babylon until its empirefell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus the Great in 539 BC.

Cyrusissued a decree at that time allowing the Jews to return to theirancestral land and rebuild the temple of Yahweh. They began tomigrate back to the land of promise and began their efforts torebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem. These efforts continuedunder a succession of Persian kings. Although the Jews were home andable once again to worship God in the way he had specified in thelaw, Nehemiah lamented that they were little more than slaves, sincethey were subject to Persia (Neh. 9:36). Gone was the dynasty ofDavid, gone were most of the tribes, and gone was the greatness ofdays past. The sins of their fathers had brought them to this sadsituation.

Inthe return to the land, the genealogies of the returnees were veryimportant. These preserved family and tribal identities so that theirlineages would not be lost. The books that originated in therestoration period preserve these lists (see 1Chron. 1–9).

Persiaand the entire ancient world eventually were conquered by Alexanderthe Great. His successors divided the land after his death; twogenerals controlled Syria to the north and Egypt to the south ofPalestine. They constantly squabbled over their borders, whichincluded Palestine. Finally, AntiochusIV Epiphanes (r.175–164BC), king of Syria, decided to turn Jerusalem into a Greek city. Hebrought great pressure on the Jews to abandon their faith. Jews foundwith a copy of the law were killed, and circumcision of infants wasforbidden. He ransacked the temple and placed an idol in it. SomeJews abandoned their faith, but others resisted. Finally, Antiochusdied, and the Jews for a short time enjoyed independence. Over time,the Roman Empire engulfed Palestine. Herod the Great ruled as king ofthe Jews for Rome in the years 37–4 BC. Upon Herod’sdeath, his kingdom was divided among his sons.

NewTestament

TheJews in Judea in Jesus’ day had learned to find their national,ethnic, and cultural identity in the law of Moses. They dutifullyfollowed the purity laws, especially in keeping the Sabbath. Theirreligion was centered on the temple, and they kept Passover and theother prescribed obligations. Although the one remaining tribe,Judah, no longer could boast of a king on the throne of David or evenindependence, it was a nation whose people thought of themselves asYahweh’s people. By Jesus’ time, they anticipated that adescendant of David, a Messiah, would arise to restore the lostkingdom of David.

Althoughthe northern tribes were lost, there was some limited continuingawareness of tribal identity in this period. The book of Esther’sMordecai is from the tribe of Benjamin, and there are a number ofreferences to Benjamin in the intertestamental literature (e.g.,2Macc. 3:4). Anna the prophetess was from the tribe of Asher(Luke 2:36). Paul knew himself to be from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom.11:1; Phil. 3:5). He used his knowledge of this fact to help bolsterhis argument that he was truly a Jew. The Levites also survived theexile, and the priestly caste continued. The kingly and priestlytribes remained, with a few others.

Jesusis presented in Matt. 1 as a direct descendant of David through theline of kings. He is the promised Messiah (John 1:41), the “Lionof the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5). Jesus promised his twelvedisciples that some day they would rule over the tribes of Israel(Matt. 19:28). In Christ, the definition of the tribes of Israel hadchanged. Gentiles were now grafted onto the olive tree of Israel(Rom. 11:17). Revelation 7:4–10 records the number from eachtribe who bear the seal of the Lamb. After hearing this, John turnedand saw them: they were revealed to be a vast company of the redeemedfrom every tribe on earth. Thus, the church had spiritually becomethe twelve tribes of Israel.

InAD 70 the temple was destroyed. Soon afterward, Israel was scattered,not to be a nation again in the promised land until 1948.

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yetthey also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father,the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these threepersons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesusprays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heavenconcerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send theSpirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will dowhat Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). Thechallenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate adoctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of whichsurfaces in both Testaments.

OldTestament

Inthe OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicitlevel. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8),Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “Butyou are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israelacknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of oldis your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as“Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son”(Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where Goddeclares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have becomeyour father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NTevidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father”certainly appears in the OT.

Messianictexts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “childis born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, MightyGod, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of“Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowedin Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipatesthe appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt.3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with theclouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory andsovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh saysto David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right handuntil I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly,the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh whileimplying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes thatcase, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spiritof God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1Sam. 16:14 acontrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” thatleaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” thattorments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God wouldnot take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spiritcan be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy(Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek.36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Sonand the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable fromone to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

NewTestament

TheNT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” oftenbecause of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appearsseveral times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9,14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which heidentifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10;and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God theFather and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Graceand peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ”(also 1Cor. 1:3; 2Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1Tim.1:2; 2Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in1Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, fromwhom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live”(see also 1Cor. 15:24; 2Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil.2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1Pet. 1:2–3;in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have beenchosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through thesanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ andsprinkled with his blood.... Praise be to the Godand Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “Godthe Father” is clear.

Biblicaltexts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for thesecond claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say asmuch, but one can take this case further. In context, John’sprologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims thathe was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1).Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, ashe declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ inJohn 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages thatidentify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, asPeter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of theliving God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They callout, “What do you want with us, Son of God? ...Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”(Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider“equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance ofGod’s glory and the exact representation of his being”(1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “imageof the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and theone by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell inhim.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great Godand Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlightsthe deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sitson the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory andpower, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and theLamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

TheNT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personalityof the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by theSpirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus isbaptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speakagainst the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’sGospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we alsosee in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18,38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the HolySpirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ(5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor andteacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’sinstructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance ofsonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). Thisperson even knows the very thoughts of God (1Cor. 2:11).Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of theFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three membersof the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, theSpirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationshipsbetween Father, Son, and Spirit

Theevidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons arecalled “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command intheir relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and theSpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of thecross to the church. This “functional subordination” ofthe Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from theanalogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son”would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though theyshare a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share acommon humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that theyrelate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22)Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by myFather” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authorityto the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season)knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About thatday or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifiesthe Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all hedoes” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please hisheavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares inJohn 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do onlywhat he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does theSon also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Sonupon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son issaid to have “offered up prayers and petitions with ferventcries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he washeard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, helearned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated bytheologians whether this functional subordination relates only to theperiod of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is aneternal subordination.

TheSpirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father andthe Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross andempower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “TheAdvocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, willteach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said toyou.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends theSpirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to youfrom the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from theFather—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveyswhat he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he willspeak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”(John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father ismine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he willmake known to you.”

TrinitarianHeresies

TheFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while beingdistinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these twopersons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement ourdeliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity willrespect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustratethem with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms ofpolytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came fromMarcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father ofJesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves uswith more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism andsubordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons ofthe Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God.One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the HolySpirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond thefunctionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that theSon and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentiallysubordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into thislatter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but notthe Creator God.

Theseearly heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of theTrinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coinedprecise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so thatGod’s “threeness” and “oneness” arepreserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the ChristianGod and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sharethe same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the HolySpirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk.hom*oiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial”(Gk. hom*oousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit.The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in sodoing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spiritwas created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea alsorejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promotedby endowing him with supernatural powers.

Eachof these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism ofIslam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claimsthat constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians willremember that tensions and paradoxes are not automaticcontradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expresslydemonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, andChristianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in thiscase. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, andquite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On thepositive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of thechurch because it affects all the others, especially the entire workof redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if heis not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as ourLord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in thatcase, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us ofwhat Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannotspeak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives usthe word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune,and sinners need him to be so.

A “type” (from Gk. typos) can be defined as abiblical event, person, or institution that serves as an example orpattern for events, persons, or institutions in the later OT or inthe NT. Typology is based on the assumption that there is a patternin God’s work in the OT and in the NT that forms apromise-fulfillment relationship. In the OT there are shadows ofthings that will be more fully revealed in the NT. Thus, the OT flowsinto the NT as part of a continuous story of salvation history. Whatis promised in the OT is fulfilled in the NT. This can beaccomplished through prophetic word or through propheticaction/event. The use of prophetic action/event to predict orforeshadow future actions/events involves typology. Typology is partof the promise-fulfillment scheme that connects the two Testaments.

Anumber of biblical interpreters note that three primarycharacteristics of types can be identified. First, there must be somenotable point of resemblance or analogy between the type and itsantitype. Second, there must be evidence that the type was appointedby God to represent the thing typified. Here one must avoid the twoextremes of, on the one hand, saying that a type is a type only whenthe Scripture explicitly calls it such, and, on the other hand, offinding a type “behind every tree.” Third, a type shouldprefigure something in the future. Thus, antitypes in the NT mustpresent truth more fully realized than in the OT.

Typologicalinterpretation of the OT is different from allegorizing a text. Theformer restricts itself to the meaning intended by the originalauthor, whereas the latter reads things into the OT passage (usuallyin connection with messianic prophecy) not initially intended. On theother hand, it should be noted that the OT authors may not alwayshave fully comprehended the long-range fulfillment of theirprophecies. Thus, for example, Ps. 22 reveals King David’strials and tribulations that are later viewed by NT authors asapplicable to the crucifixion of Christ (e.g., the quotation of Ps.22:18 in John 19:24 regarding the soldiers casting lots for Jesus’clothes). David probably did not envision his situation as predictiveof the sufferings of the coming Christ. But the Holy Spirit did, andhe allowed the Gospel authors to make the connection. Thus, typologyis a special form of biblical prophecy, which Jesus seemed to useextensively. Hence, the type is found in the OT, and its antitypeoccurs in the NT.

Moreparticularly, Jesus seemed to perceive himself as the antitype to allthree of the aforementioned possible types. First, Jesus fulfilled inhimself persons in the OT who were types. Thus, Jesus is the ultimateDavid, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, the heavenly Son of Man ofDan. 7, and the Suffering Servant of Isa. 52:13–53:12. Second,with regard to famous OT events, Jesus reenacted the new exodus andpassed the test in the new wilderness wanderings (Matt. 4:1–11pars.), and then he proclaimed a new law from the mountain, as didMoses (Matt. 5–7). Third, Jesus revised or replaced OTinstitutions such as the sacrificial system and the feasts of Yahweh(most notably Passover) at his death, and at his resurrection hebecame the new temple of God.

TheNT continues Jesus’ typological interpretation of the OT,seeing in him the supreme antitype of OT symbolism. Thus, forexample, Paul sees Christ as the second Adam (Rom. 5:12–21),whose church is the new Israel, the eschatological people of God(1Cor. 10:1–13). Matthew perceives Jesus to be the newMoses (Matt. 1–10). Note the following comparisons:

Moses,the Old Testament Type vs. Jesus, Matthew’s Antitype to Moses:

Moseswas born to deliver his people. Jesus was born to save his people.

Pharoahtried to kill the infant Moses. Herod tried to kill the infant Jesus.

Moseswas “baptized” in the exodus. Jesus was baptized in thenew “exodus.”

Moseswas tempted in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted in the wildnerness.

Mosesperformed ten plagues. Jesus performed ten miracles.

Mosesreceived the law on the mount. Jesus gave a new law on the mount.

Lukeunderstands Jesus to be the new David (Luke 1:32). Hebrews assertsthat Jesus has inaugurated the new covenant (chap. 8), the truepriesthood (chaps. 7–8; 10), whose death is the fulfillment andreplacement of the sacrificial system of the OT (chaps. 9–10).But perhaps the most extensive usage of typology in the NT occurs inRev. 21–22 (cf. Rev. 19), where the new creation is theantitype of the old creation of Gen. 1–3 (see table 10).

Table10. New Creation Typology in Revelation 21–22

Sinfulpeople are scattered (Gen. 1-3). God’s people unite to singhis praises (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:6-7).

The“marriage” of Adam and Eve takes place in the garden(Gen. 1-3). The marriage of the second Adam and his bride, thechurch has come (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:7, 21:2, 9).

Godis abandoned by sinful people (Gen. 1-3). God’s people (newJerusalem, bride of Christ) are made ready for God; marriage of theLamb. (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:7-8, 21:2, 9-21).

Exclusionfrom bounty of Eden (Gen. 1-3). Invitation to marriage supper ofLamb (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:9).

Satanintroduces sin into world (Gen. 1-3). Satan and sin are judged (Rev.21-22; cf. 19:11-21, 20:7-10).

Theserpent deceives humankind (Gen. 1-3). The ancient serpent is bound“to keep him from deceiving the nations (Rev. 21-22; cf.20:2-3).

Godgives humans dominion over the earth (Gen. 1-3). God’s peoplewill reign with him forever (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:4, 6, 22:5).

Peoplerebel against the true God, resulting in physical and spiritual death(Gen. 1-3). God’s people risk death to worship the true Godand thus experience life (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:4-6).

Sinfulpeople are sent away from life (Gen. 1-3). God’s people havetheir names written in the book of life (Rev. 20:4-6, 15; 21:6, 27).

Deathenters the world (Gen. 1-3). Death is put to death (Rev. 20:14;21:4).

Godcreates the first heaven and earth, eventually cursed by sin (Gen.1-3). God creates a new heaven and earth, where sin is nowhere to befound (Rev. 21:1)/

Watersymbolizes chaos (Gen. 1-3). There is no longer any sea (Rev. 21:1).

Sinbrings pain and tears (Gen. 1-3). God comforts his people andremoves crying and pain (Rev. 21:4).

Sinfulhumanity is cursed with wandering (exile) (Gen. 1-3). God’speople are given a permanent home (Rev. 21:3).

Communityis forfeited (Gen. 1-3). Genuine community is experienced (Rev.21-22; cf. 21:3, 7).

Sinfulpeople are banished from the presence of God (Gen. 1-3). God livesamong his people (Rev. 21:3, 7, 22; 22:4).

Creationbegins to grow old and die (Gen. 1-3). All things are made new (Rev.21:5).

Wateris used to destroy wicked humanity (Gen. 1-3). God quenches thirstwith water from the spring of life (Rev. 21:6; 22:1).

“Inthe beginning, God…” (Gen. 1-3). “I am the Alphaand the Omega, the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 21:6).

Sinfulhumanity suffers a wandering exile in the land (Gen. 1-3). God giveshis children an inheritance (Rev. 21:7).

Sinenters the world (Gen. 1-3). Sin is banished from God’s city(Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:15).

Sinfulhumanity is separated from the presence of the holy God (Gen. 1-3). God’s people experience God’s holiness (cubed city = holyof holies) (Rev. 21:15-21).

Godcreates light and separates it from darkness (Gen. 1-3). No morenight or natural light; God himself is the source of light (Rev.21:23; 22:5)

Languagesof sinful humanity are confused (Gen. 1-3). God’s people is amulticultural people (Rev. 21:24, 26; 22:2).

Sinfulpeople are sent away from the garden (Gen. 1-3). The newheaven/earth includes a garden (Rev. 22:2).

Sinfulpeople are forbidden to eat from the tree of life (Gen. 1-3). God’speople may eat freely from the tree of life (Rev. 22:2, 14).

Sinresults in spiritual sickness (Gen. 1-3). God heals the nations(Rev. 22:2).

Sinfulpeople are cursed (Gen. 1-3). The curse is removed from redeemedhumanity, and people become a blessing (Rev. 22:3).

Sinfulpeople refuse to serve/obey God (Gen. 1-3). God’s people servehim (Rev. 22:3).

Sinfulpeople are ashamed in God’s presence (Gen. 1-3). God’speople will “see his face” (Rev. 22:4).

A divine communication in the form of visual imagery, usuallyaccompanied by words, and often using symbols that requireexplanation and spur reflection about God’s otherwiseimperceptible presence and activity. Presumably, the recipient “sees”the vision as an event of inward perception, often within a dreamduring sleep or in a divinely induced state of ecstasy (Gen. 15; Dan.7:1; 10:1–9; 2Cor. 12:1–4). Characteristically,visions entail conversation with God or an angelic representative,often following a question-and-answer format (Dan. 7:15–28;Zech. 1:8–15, 18–21). The visionary is actually in thescene as direct observer and active participant (Dan. 8:1–2).

Propheticvisions are meant to be retold. For example, imagery is accompaniedby the authentication of divine commissioning (Isa. 6; Ezek.1:1–3:15; Rev. 10), leading to announcement of judgment (Jer.1:4–19). This close conjunction of image and word (1Sam.3:21) is reinforced by statements about a prophet “seeing”God’s word (e.g., Mic. 1:1 ESV, NRSV, NASB) and about propheticbooks as collections of visions (2Chron. 32:32; Nah. 1:1).Vision reports join oracles and other forms of prophetic speech asessential features of these works. Visions contribute to thecommunity’s spiritual well-being (Prov. 29:18; Ezek. 7:26), butnot always (Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13; Zech. 13:4; Col. 2:18).

Visionsdrive the narrative surrounding Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:18–2:23;Luke 1:1–2:20). The baptism of Jesus includes a visionaryelement, the Holy Spirit’s anointing of Jesus for his ministry,accompanied by the Father’s word (Matt. 3:16–17; Mark1:10–11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32–33). Jesus’transfiguration is comparable (Matt. 17:1–9; Mark 9:2–10;Luke 9:28–36). Visions mark key transition points in thenarrative of Acts (e.g., chaps. 9–11). The book of Revelationopens with a vision of the Son of Man (1:9–20) and isstructured around three vision cycles of judgment interspersed withvisions of heaven meant to bolster the readers’ faithfulness.

Ceremonies marking entry into marriage. In the Bible,weddings initiate the formation of new households with the blessingof family and community.

OldTestament

Inthe OT, weddings were important to the patriarchs and to Israelbecause the new couple was expected to produce children to helpfulfill the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2; 17:6; 22:15–18; Ruth4:11–13; Isa. 65:23). Heirs were also the assurance that aman’s name remained eternally with Israel, so much so that if aman died childless, his brother was obligated to wed the widow andproduce children in his name (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–10).Moreover, weddings assured that property was kept within families andtribes and also transferred in an orderly way from one generation tothe next (Num. 36:1–12; Ruth 4:5; Ps. 25:13).

Multiplewives were allowed in the OT (Gen. 30:26; Deut. 21:15; 1Sam.1:2; 2Sam. 5:13; 1Kings 11:3), as were multipleconcubines, who had official standing in the household, though lowerthan that of wives. Weddings usually were associated with a manpublicly taking a wife; he acquired concubines with less fanfare(Gen. 16:1–3; 30:3–5; Judg. 19:1, 3).

OTweddings included certain distinctive elements. The bridegroom or hisfather paid a bride-price, or dowry, to the father of thebridegroom’s prospective wife (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16–17;1Sam. 18:25). The bridegroom had a more central role than thebride. He emerged from a chamber or tent to claim his wife (Ps. 19:5;Joel 2:16), who, in the case of a royal wedding, may have processedto him (Ps. 45:13–15). Both he and the bride were adorned (Song3:11; Isa. 49:18; 61:10; Jer. 2:32); the woman was also veiled (Gen.24:65; 29:23, 25; 38:14, 19; Song 4:1, 3; Isa. 47:1–3). Theirwedding was the occasion of much rejoicing and feasting (Gen. 29:22;Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11) and lasted seven days (Gen. 29:27;Judg. 14:17). The main event was their sexual union (Isa. 62:5),which occurred on the first night (Gen. 29:23; Ruth 4:13). Unless shehad been a widow, the bride was presumed to be a virgin on herwedding night, and evidence of her virginity, a bloodstained cloth,was retained as proof (Deut. 22:13–19). Virginity was essentialto a previously unmarried bride; a woman who had been raped orotherwise engaged in premarital sexual relations was deemed defiledand unmarriageable to any but the first man with whom she hadintercourse (Deut. 22:21; 2Sam. 13:1–20). The importanceof this underpins the shock value of the book of Hosea (see esp.1:2), an extended metaphor that presents Israel as a prostitutenevertheless pursued by Yahweh as her husband.

NewTestament

TheNT continues to testify to many of these wedding traditions,significantly including the gathering of community (Matt. 22:2; John2:1–2) in joyful celebration (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34;John 2:9–10). Wedding feasts could be lavish affairs (Matt.22:4; John 2:6–10), with protocols regarding seating (Luke14:8–10) and attire (Matt. 22:11–13; Rev. 19:7–9).

Inthe NT, these and other first-century wedding customs illustrateaspects of the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the wedding feast(Matt. 22:1–14) contrasts the invited guests (corrupt religiousleaders in Israel) who ignored the king’s wedding invitationand murdered his servants with those people, good and evil, gatheredfrom the streets (the downtrodden) who took their place. Theirwillingness to attend is qualified only by their coming properlyattired in wedding robes, which by inference were provided by theking himself (Rev. 19:7–8).

Theparable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) plays on theunderstanding that weddings occurred not at a specific time but whenthe bridegroom was ready. His readiness was determined by, amongother things, the readiness of a dwelling place for his new bride. Infirst-century Capernaum, this would have been a room or rooms builtonto his father’s insula, a multifamily compound surrounding aninterior courtyard; the same image is behind John 14:2–4. Theparable, identifying the Son of Man as the bridegroom, illustratesthat while his coming in glory is certain, its timing is unknown.Therefore, the bridal party is to be vigilant and prepared.

Elsewhere,Jesus is specifically named asthe bridegroom preparing to marryhis bride, the church (2Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 31–32).Thewedding feast at Cana (John 2:1–11), which beginsJesus’ public ministry, points proleptically to the marriagesupper of the Lamb, which inaugurates the eschatological age (Rev.19:7–9). The culminating picture of God with his people (Deut.16:13–16; Matt. 1:23; John 1:14) is a magnificent wedding (Rev.21:2, 9) between Christ and the new Jerusalem.