1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4 Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6 But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.
9 The brother in humble circ*mstances ought to take pride in his high position. 10 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. 11 For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.
12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
16 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
Preparing For The Second Part Of Life
James 1:1-18
Sermon
by King Duncan
It was a familiar scene as the pastor shook hands with persons leaving worship. At the end of the line was a man who occasionally attended worship. As the man came to shake his pastor's hand he said, "Reverend, Reverend, what you said today in your sermon was exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you very, very much. It was so helpful to me. It revolutionized my life. Thank you, thank you."
To be honest the pastor was surprised yet pleased that his words made such a profound difference in this man's life. "I'm glad I said something that was helpful to you," the pastor said, "but I'm curious ” what in particular was it?"
Without a moment's thought the man answered, "Well, you may remember, you began your sermon by saying that you wanted to talk to us about two things this morning and then in the middle you said, ˜That completes this first part of what I wanted to tell you and now it's time I moved on to the second part of my sermon.' And at that moment I realized I had come to the end of the first part of my life, and it was high time that I got on to the second part. Thank you, Reverend," he said as he left the church, "thank you, very much." (1)
In a sense today is the beginning of the second part of life for each of us. For today brings fresh insights, fresh opportunities, including the greatest opportunity of all ” the opportunity to make a new start with Christ.
The Book of James is probably about the most practical book in the New Testament. The author doesn't waste time with any heady theological arguments. What he does is offer some good, practical, down-to-earth advice ” advice that we can use everyday. Now there's a reason why the Book of James is this way. It was written for people who had just been converted to the Christian faith. You see, because there weren't a lot of Christians back then, new members of the faith were constantly being tempted to revert back to the ways they used to live. Therefore they needed some practical advice to help them live as Christians, and stick with it.
But we also need help in living the Christian life. Even those of us who have been Christian all our lives. We live in a secular world that nods in God's direction, but does not take God seriously. So for those of us here today who wish to get on with the second part of life, our lesson for the day offers three important things to remember.
FIRST, LET GOD DO THE LEADING, SINCE ALL GOOD THINGS COME FROM ABOVE.
James writes, "Every generous act of giving, with every
practical gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." All too often we fall into the temptation of thinking that all the good things that happen to us are the result of our own efforts. We think we have brought good fortune on ourselves. But mature faith realizes that all good things come from God. Of course, it may not seem that way at the time....
Many years ago there was a young woman who was determined to become a missionary to India. But just as she was preparing to leave, her mother was in an accident. So she delayed her trip, and she stayed by her mother's bedside until she died three years later. Her mother's dying request was for her to visit her sister who lived in the far west.
The young woman did as she was requested. She was still planning on going to India, as soon as she had completed her visit. But she found her sister dying from consumption, and without proper medical aid. So, as with her mother, she stayed with her sister until her she died.
After her sister's death her attention was once again turned toward India. But once again a family member's death prevented her. This time her sister's husband had died, and he had left five small children as orphans.
She knew she would never make it to India after that. She took up her sister's lonely house as her mission instead and raised her sister's children. But later God would show her why she wasn't to go to India. Because, instead of letting her go to India, God called three of the five children she had raised to go in her place. She had followed God's plan instead of her own, and a greater good was accomplished thereby. (2)
We do not always understand where the events of life are leading us, but we recognize, with the author of the hymn, that, "Still ˜tis God's hand that leadeth me." Remember that all good things come from God.
But we also need to remember to be QUICK TO LISTEN AND SLOW TO SPEAK. Again, this is very practical advice whether we are listening for God's voice or when we are listening to a friend.
Often when a person first becomes a Christian, they think they know everything they need to know. And when we have that kind of attitude, we try to make everyone else agree with our opinions, right or wrong. And that can make for a church that is full of people talking, but with no one listening. And nothing can ever get accomplished that way.
The noted Harvard scholar Charles T. Copeland once had a student ask him why there were no courses in conversation. Wasn't there anything to learn about how to converse?
"Of course there is," answered Copeland," and if you'll just listen, I'll tell you what it is."
Then he just stared at the student. The resulting silence was long and awkward. Finally the exasperated student said, "Well, I'm listening!"
"You see," said Copeland, "you're learning already!"
It's like psychologist Carl Rogers once said: "The biggest block to personal communication is one person's inability to listen intelligently, understandingly, and skillfully to another person."
Another wise man once said that talking is sharing, but listening is caring.
The cost of poor listening can truly be high. There was once a $100,000 error caused by a dispatcher who routed a fleet of trucks to the wrong state through poor listening. The dispatcher heard that the trucks were to go to Portland, but quit listening before the state was given. The result: eight trucks were sent 3,000 miles out of the way to Portland, Oregon, instead of to Portland, Maine. (3) Listening really is serious business. And that is true in every aspect of life: at work, with friends, and in our families.
Bishop Woodie White tells about one time when he was reading the newspaper while his daughter sat on the floor beside him. All of a sudden, out of the blue, she screamed at him, "Daddy, you always do that!" Well, he was flabbergasted. But her next words devastated him: "You never listen to me when I talk to you!" She had been deeply hurt by him, and he hadn't even known it. His daughter was telling him that he was ignoring her. And to ignore his precious daughter was unthinkable. (4)
Therefore James tells us to listen first and to speak second. Stephen Covey put it this way: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. So many more people would have such happier lives if they would only follow that simple rule.
So now we have two of our three rules: Let God lead since all good things come from God. Second: listen first, then speak. And here is James' final piece of advice for today: LIVE OUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
When we first become conscious that we really want to be followers of Jesus, the first thing we do is listen to the gospel message. We feel we have to absorb as much as possible. But there comes a time when we need to put into practice what we have heard. And that's what James means when he tells us to "Be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves."
What we read, and what we hear in the gospel must be lived out.
James offers an illustration to help us with this crucial point. What would happen if every morning we looked in the mirror, saw our reflection, and then as we went off to face our day, we forgot what we looked like? It would be a mess, that's what. We wouldn't know if the ID card we were holding in our hand belonged to us or not. We'd go into important staff meetings looking like we just woke up, or we'd go to the ball courts in our best suits.
The same thing happens to the people who attend church week after week but never allow the word of God to penetrate their lives enough to lead them to action. These people listen to the scripture and nod their heads in agreement, but then fail to act according to what they see.
Our faith must lead us to action. And when we step out in faith, our actions will be blessed. "Doers who act," James writes, "will be blessed in their doing."
Bob McAlister was a man who had plans for his life. At twenty-three he was an attache to Senator Strom Thurmond. He would accompany the Senator on the floor of the Senate and when he met with the President at the White House.
After a while Bob took up a career in broadcasting. He worked twelve hours a day to make a name for himself. He married, but it soon failed because he never saw his wife. Then he set more and higher goals for himself. He met every one of them, and then some.
One sweltering hot day in July, Bob was rushing to get to work a bit early when he noticed something large blocking a part of the road ahead. He cursed, because every minute off work was a minute wasted. But when he got closer he saw that the obstacle was a man in a wheelchair. Sweat was running off him as he strained to roll his wheelchair along the pavement right into the middle of traffic. Cars were speeding past him just inches away on both sides.
Then Bob did something he had never done before in his life: He pulled the car up to the man in the wheelchair, and offered to help. It turned out that the man was going to a nearby mission to get some soup for his sick friends - a mere seven-mile round trip. So Bob put him in the car, and spent the day talking to this man and bringing food to his friends.
Now Bob McAlister had written speeches about poverty while in Washington. He had reported news stories about homeless families, and he had even given to charities. But before that hot summer day he had never seen poverty up close.
Bob still wonders how he could have been so near all those years, and still so far away. But Bob McAlister became a doer. (4) Today his life is far more satisfying since he put his faith into action.
James offers some practical advice for living as Christians today. He calls us to enter the second part of life. That part of life opens up for us when we let God do the leading since all good things come from God - when we listen more and speak less - and finally, when we let our faith lead us into action. Particularly does our life come alive when we reach out to other people and offer them Christlike love. For when we reach out to others we will be blessed in the process. True faith, says James, is "to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
1. M. Scott Peck, FURTHER ALONG THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), pp. 155-156.
2. Contributed. Source unknown.
3. Diana Bonet, THE BUSINESS OF LISTENING, as quoted in ENTREPRENEUR 5/93.
4. Charles Colson, THE BODY, (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1992), pp. 388-391.
Dynamic Preaching, Collected Sermons, by King Duncan
James identifies himself not as an apostle but as a “servant” (or slave) of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. He sends greetings to the “twelve tribes scattered among the nations.”
Encountering trials (1:2–4): James urges his readers to “consider it pure joy” when they encounter various kinds of trials, perhaps especially economic and social difficulties (1:2). They can respond with joy or deep contentment (versus an emotional happiness) because they know God is using the trials to produce endurance and, over time, to make them mature and complete (1:3–4).
Wisdom (1:5–8): If we need wisdom (perhaps to handle various trials), we should ask God, trusting in his kind and generous character, and he will give us wisdom (1:5). If we doubt, however, we can be compared to a storm-tossed wave …
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4 Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6 But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.
9 The brother in humble circ*mstances ought to take pride in his high position. 10 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. 11 For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.
12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
16 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
1:1 · Address and Greeting: Although James could claim to be a brother of the Lord and a leader in the early Jerusalem church, he is content to call himself a “servant.” Indeed, like Moses (Deut. 34:5) and David (Ezek. 37:24) before him, James recognizes that there is no higher honor than being called to serve the living God. James’s readers are also honored to belong to the people of God of the last day—“the twelve tribes.” As I suggested in the introduction, these readers are probably Jewish Christians who had to flee from Jerusalem and take up new lives in lands outside Palestine.
1:2–12 · Overcoming trials:As James’s readers establish themselves in their new surroundings, they have to face many trials. Poverty and persecution appear to have been the biggest trials faced by these early Christians, but James has in mind all kinds of difficulties that can pose threats to our faith in God—sickness, the death of loved ones, a rebellious child, a hated job. Whatever the trial, James commands Christians to rejoice (1:2). How is this possible? By recognizing that God can use these problems and tribulations to produce Christians who are “mature and complete” (1:4). Trials, which test us as fire refines ore (see also 1Pet. 1:7), lead to a more settled, stable Christian character; and as we continue taking a Christian viewpoint on trials, this perseverance will be able to finish its work of producing strong, mature, unshakable believers. Right at the beginning of his letter, James sounds a note that he will repeat throughout the letter in different ways: Christians must take a distinctively Christian perspective on life.
James sometimes links his topics by repeating a word: here he joins verses 4 and 5 with the verb “lack.” A more substantive link may also exist, however. Wisdom may be that quality that is needed if the believer is to face trials in the appropriate Christian manner. Wisdom in the Bible is a practical, down-to-earth virtue that provides its possessor with insight into the will and ways of God. Like the book of Proverbs, James emphasizes that wisdom can be gained only by asking God. And as an encouragement to ask, James reminds us that God gives “simply,” “with a single, unwavering intent” (the probable meaning of the Greek word here; NIV “generously”), and without holding our past failures against us (1:5). But not every asking, even if imploring and sincere, receives an answer from God. We must ask in faith, without doubting. In an expressive image, James compares the doubter to the constantly varied surface of the sea—forever in motion, never stable, up one day, down the next (1:6). Such a person is literally, James says, “double-souled”—divided at the very root of their being, a spiritual schizophrenic. That kind of person must not expect that God will respond to their prayers (1:7–8). What James criticizes in these verses is not the person who has occasional doubts about his or her faith, or lapses into sin now and again—few indeed would ever have prayers answered were that the case! Rather, James castigates the person who is basically insincere in seeking for things like wisdom from God, the person who is seeking to serve two different masters at the same time (see Matt. 6:24; James 4:4).
The discussion of poverty and wealth in verses 9–11 may be connected to verses 2–4 (if we recognize poverty as one of the most difficult of trials) or to verses 5–8 (considering that wealth has great potential for dividing our loyalties). James contrasts two people in these verses: poor Christians (1:9) and “the rich” (1:10–11). This latter phrase is ambiguous. If James has in mind rich non-Christians, then his contrast is between poor Christians, who are to rejoice in their heavenly calling, and rich unbelievers, who have nothing to boast about except their ultimate judgment for their wicked use of money. That James elsewhere uses “rich” to designate non-Christians (5:1) favors this interpretation. On the other hand, “the rich” could be Christians. In this case, James would be contrasting Christians from very different socioeconomic spheres and encouraging all believers to focus not on that worldly status but on their relationship to Christ. Poor believers should not despair because of their poverty but rejoice because they are “rich in faith and [heirs to] the kingdom” (2:5). Rich believers, on the other hand, must be careful not to take pride in their worldly possessions—for their wealth will quickly perish—but to boast in their “low position” (NIV “humiliation”), their relationship to Jesus, the servant who was “despised and rejected” (Isa. 53:3). Either interpretation makes sense of the verses, but the second alternative explains more naturally the order of the Greek words in verse 9 (literally “the brother, the humble one”). James concludes the opening section of the letter by returning explicitly to the theme of trials (1:12). Remaining faithful to God during trials brings God’s blessing: the reward of life eternal that God has promised to those who belong to him. The risen Jesus similarly encouraged suffering Christians: “Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown” (Rev. 2:10).
1:13–18 · The source of temptation:The connection between James’s discussion of trials in verses 2–12 and temptation in verses 13–15 is more explicit in the Greek text than in the English because a single Greek root does duty for both these concepts. In meaning, however, the two are to be carefully distinguished. A trial is an outward circ*mstance that can pose difficulties to our faith. A temptation is the inner enticement to sin. What James is concerned about is that his readers will confuse these two and attribute temptation to God. Scripture indicates that God does “test” or put his people through trials (cf. Gen. 22:1). But, James emphatically asserts, God never tempts his people (1:13). He never entices them to sin or desires that they fail in the trials he may bring. Believers must never excuse their sin by blaming God for the temptation. Rather, James points out, believers need look no further than within themselves for the problem. It is our own “evil desire” that is the real source of temptation (1:14). Like the bait that lures the fish and the hook that snares it, sin entices and seeks to entrap us. That James does not here mention Satan does not mean that he ignores the power of the tempter (see 4:7). His point is to lay responsibility for sin clearly at the door of each individual. And, as J.A. Bengel remarks, “Even the suggestions of the devil do not occasion danger, before they are made ‘our own’ ” (Bengel, 5:7). Shifting his imagery, James traces the terrible process by which temptation becomes spiritual death: the impulse to sin, alive in all of us, conceives sin when we succumb to temptation; if we do nothing to cut off the growth and maturation of sin, death is the inevitable result (1:15).
After issuing a warning not to be deceived (1:16), James provides a positive counterpart to verses 13–15: far from being responsible for temptation, or anything evil, God gives good gifts to his children. And that God will continue to do so can be depended on, for he is unchangeable. Unlike the sun, moon, stars, and planets (“the heavenly lights”; cf. Ps. 136:7–9), which regularly move and change their appearance, God never changes (1:17). As an outstanding example of God’s good gifts, James cites the new, spiritual birth that Christians have experienced (1:18). This “new birth,” or regeneration, is motivated solely by the will of God. It is accomplished through the instrument of “the word of truth,” the gospel (cf. 2Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5; 2Tim. 2:15), and it has as its purpose the bringing into being of “firstfruits,” the first harvest of the fruits produced by God’s eternal plan of redemption.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Wisdom for Life’s Tests
1:1 The letter from James opens with a simple and direct greeting. The writer identifies himself simply as James, a servant of God. There was only one James so well known in the early church that he would need no other form of identification, and that was James the Just, brother of Jesus, leader of the church in Jerusalem. The readers are expected to recognize the name.
Yet for all his prominence and important position in the church (so important that the letter from Jude begins, “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James”), the title used is very modest. He is simply a servant. It is possible that he is thinking of himself as someone like Moses, chosen of God and taken into his service (Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:2, Num. 12:7), but more likely it simply reflects the humility of the author. The most exalted statement he can make about himself is not his leadership of the church or his relationship to Jesus, but the fact that he, like every other Christian, is a slave of God and of Jesus. He calls Jesus The Lord Jesus Christ, for he is thinking of him as his heavenly, exalted Lord, who is about to return in glory to set things right in the world. It is this picture of Jesus that dominates the letter throughout.
James sends his greetings to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. On the one hand, he sees the church as a united body or a distinct nation in the world. Believers are God’s people as the Romans are Caesar’s people and Egyptians are Pharaoh’s. They are his chosen ones here on earth. Yet they are not a powerful group, for they are scattered. They are not a physically united group; they do not have a land they may call their own. Instead they are spread throughout the nations, belonging, yet never being one of the people among whom they live, living out their lives as foreigners in the land in which they were born. Their dignity is not in strength or numbers but in the fact that they belong to God.
James begins the letter itself by introducing his three main topics—trials, wisdom, and wealth: (1) A proper perspective gives one joy despite a difficult situation, although in order to stand in such a situation one will need divine wisdom. (2) The person who prays for this wisdom needs to pray from a committed position. Without commitment one will receive nothing. (3) One of the chief trials of life and tests of commitment is wealth and how one uses it. There is no need to fear the rich—their end is at hand.
1:2 James addresses his readers as brothers, which means that he considers them members of the church in good standing. There is a warmth in his address that continues throughout the letter despite his criticism of them. He is one with his readers and shares their weaknesses, as he will show more graphically in 3:1–2.
The readers are to consider it pure joy when they suffer trials of many kinds. The trials to which James refers are the testing and refining situations in life, hard situations in which faith is sorely tried, such as persecution, a difficult moral choice, or a tragic experience. James does not gloss over the reality of the suffering involved—the tears, the pain, the sweat. Instead he points to a transformed perspective of those trials. If one looks at the difficult situation not merely from the perspective of the immediate problem but also from the perspective of the end result God is producing, one can have a deep joy. This is not a surface happiness, but an anticipation of future reward in the end-times (eschatological joy). It is not only possible, but necessary (thus James commands it), for without it one may become so bogged down in present problems as to abandon the faith and give up the struggle altogether. Only with God’s perspective, thus considering oneself already fortunate in anticipation of God’s future reward, can the faith be maintained against the pressures of life.
1:3 One reason it is possible to believe oneself to be fortunate in adversity is that the suffering produces a good result even now. With Joseph one might say, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). The process of testing faith is like the tempering of steel: the heat, rather than destroying the steel, makes it stronger. The apocryphal book Sirach (2:5) uses another image: “For gold is proved in the fire, and men acceptable to God in the furnace of affliction.” The process is difficult, but the result is good.
James assumes the good result when he writes, the testing of your faith develops perseverance. The test has to do with the fact that they have faith, that there is “pure gold” in them. They should not look fearfully at testing, but look through it, for the result will be perseverance. This ability is hardly a virtue to be winked at. First, it is a virtue that only suffering and trials will produce. Second, it yields to a stable character, a firm, settled disposition of faith: It is a heroic virtue. A person possessing such a virtue could be trusted to hold out, whatever the circ*mstances. Such people were surely in demand as leaders in the church. Third, it relates the believer to other believers who were noted in Jewish tradition for this virtue: Abraham, who was put through the fire ten times (Jubilees 17:18; 19:8), Joseph, who went from trial to trial before becoming ruler over Egypt (Testament of Joseph 2:7; 10:1), or Job, who endured patiently a series of almost unbelievable sufferings, only to be rewarded in the end (James 5:11; Testament of Job).
There is no question that this virtue is important, just as there is no question that the means of getting it are unpopular. But the Christian is called to face into the fact: However difficult and unpleasant the test may seem, God is perfecting the Christian’s character through it.
1:4 Perseverance, however, is not a passive, teeth-gritting virtue, but a development in which the character is firmed up and shaped around the central commitment to Christ. It does not happen overnight, for it is a process. The process needs to finish its work, or “have its complete effect,” for it is the shaping of the whole person that is at issue. One must be careful not to short-circuit it: to pull the metal out of the fire too soon, to abort the developing child, to resist the schooling—to use three metaphors often used to describe the process. James does not see a single end to the process, such as the development of love as a super-virtue (Rom. 13:8; 2 Pet. 1:6) or the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:6; Rom. 6:22)—although he would have certainly approved of such—for the goal is far more global. The person is formed, not just partly or simply morally, but totally, as a whole being, and is thus to be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
In speaking of the person as perfect James is not thinking of sinless perfection but is probably referring to a concept like that found in Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The concept is that of a commitment to the command of God in all its depth and radicality, a commitment that calls anything less than total obedience sin and repents and seeks forgiveness, a commitment that, rather than reducing the word to the cultural “pagan” standard of the world, seeks to be shaped and formed by it. In other words, James is referring to mature Christian character: It is mature in that it is well developed; it is complete in that every virtue and insight is in place; it is not lacking anything, but mirrors Christ. This is what adversity should produce in the Christian if he or she will allow it. But it is not a passive process; the believer has to permit this to happen. There is an imperative involved (a better translation might be “allow perseverance to finish its work”). It is possible to short-circuit the process and thus not to develop properly and to live through the suffering in vain.
1:5 James now turns to his second theme and what appears to be a totally new topic, that of wisdom and prayer. It is indeed a major theme of the letter, but it is not unrelated to what goes before. If person hears a call to be perfect, he or she would certainly cry, “Help! Who can do it?” (like Paul’s “Who is sufficient for these things?” 2 Cor. 2:16; 3:5–6). Divine help is necessary, and divine help in James comes in the form of wisdom (cf. 3:13 ff.). Christians should indeed lack nothing, but in order to do this they need divine wisdom.
James shares this recognition. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God. He can do this with full confidence that God gives generously to all. Here James draws on the Jesus tradition (the yet unwritten sayings of Jesus that later formed the Gospels), for Jesus promised God would give his children what they ask (Matt. 7:7–11; Mark 11:24; Luke 11:9–13; John 15:7). What better gift could they request than the wisdom needed to withstand the trials they face. God gives it, for God is a good giver; God gives generously, which means that he gives without mental reservations, that he gives simply, with a single heart. He is not looking for some hidden return from believers; he does not have mixed motives or grudging feelings. In fact, he gives not just generously but without finding fault. That is, he does not complain about the gift or its cost. He is not a “fool,” who “has many eyes instead of one. He gives little and upbraids much, he opens his mouth like a herald; today he lends and tomorrow he asks back” (Sirach 20:14–15). No, God gives true gifts: no complaining, no criticizing (What? You need help again?), no mixed motives, no reluctance. Free, generous, even spendthrift giving characterizes the Christian’s God.
And what a gift he gives! He gives wisdom, which in this letter is the equivalent of the Holy Spirit, a gift that James’ readers, as former Jews, would recognize (as the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls did) as one of the gifts of the age to come. Wisdom comes to the Christian through Christ (1 Cor. 1:24; 2:4–6). This surely is what is needed to withstand trials and come to perfection.
1:6 Not everyone, however, receives that wisdom requested. “Where is that spiritual power?” one might ask. “If God is so generous, where is the wisdom I need to discern the situation, to withstand the test, and to come to perfection?” Such questions were certainly asked, for James provides an answer: But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt.
First, he must believe, that is, one must ask in the context of faith. Faith here is not simply intellectual knowledge (as it will be in 2:19). James has no thought that one simply has to give intellectual assent to a doctrine to receive the blessing (e.g., God will give what Christians ask; therefore he will give them wisdom if they ask for it). James does not appear to be calling for research into the truth of a matter (e.g., that the promise really is one given by Jesus or that out of a hundred people who prayed all received their request, while only fifty of a similar group who did not pray had a satisfactory outcome), but for commitment. Therefore he is also not speaking of faith as an emotional feeling (i.e., if only people could keep feeling that God is really giving wisdom to them will they receive it). Certainly, this is how James has been interpreted by later commentators both in modern popular religion and in ancient times. But James is not trying to encourage believers to stuff their doubts deep within and to drum up an emotional feeling of certainty, but to commit themselves. Faith for James is a single-minded commitment to God that trusts in God because God is God. Thus faith remains resting in God despite doubt and holds on through testing. Faith is the “but if not” of Daniel’s friends (Dan. 3:18); the “though he slay me yet will I trust him” of Job (Job 13:15). It is a confident trust in God or a resting in God despite the outward circ*mstances.
Because of this fact, the opposite of faith (not doubt) is doubt. The person who doubts is not doubting that God will do something specific, but is doubting in general. “Does God really act today?” or more deeply expressed, “Can I trust God to do the best for me or must I look out for myself?” Here James may be applying a tradition from Jesus like that in Matthew 21:21: “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, … you can do what was done to this fig tree.”
The doubter is like a wave of the sea. The picture is graphic. The doubter is “one who lives in inner conflict between trust and distrust of God.” (F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief [Freiburg: Herder, 1967], p. 70.) In a service of worship this person is caught up in the music, the words of praise, or the exhortation of the sermon and trusts God completely. Outside, the same person faces the winds of adversity and, instead of trusting despite feelings, gives in and believes that only his or her own resources and cleverness can help. Like wind-tossed water, an unstable Christian sways back and forth.
1:7–8 That man, says James (to clearly distinguish this individual from other people with a stable faith), should not think he will receive anything from the Lord. Obviously James cannot be sure that such a person, or even a wicked blasphemer, for that matter, will receive nothing from God. God is gracious and kind, often giving more than he has promised and always giving far more than people deserve. Sun and rain come to the good and the evil alike. But such a person wavering between God and the world ought not to expect to receive something from God. Such a person has no right to expect anything, much less wisdom, for he or she is not following the proper principles. The promises of the gospel all assume a commitment of the individual to, and trust in, God (e.g., the “in my name” formula, John 14:14). Without this trust there is a more basic issue to be settled than that of the item asked for: The more basic issue is that of trust. Until one has dealt with this issue, one is in no position to begin praying.
This person, claims James, is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. The pre-Christian Jew Sirach had already said, “My son, disobey not the fear of the Lord, and approach it not with a double heart” (1:28), and, “Woe unto the fearful hearts and faint hands, and unto the sinner that goes two ways … woe unto you who have lost your endurance” (2:12–14). James has the same concern for this person of a double mind. If a person’s mind is split and he or she really does not know whom to trust, one can hardly have confidence in such a person. Such a one is not just undecided but, in fact, unstable. Now, indeed, he or she may “trust” in God and be part of the church, but with a heart filled with doubt, this person is emotionally keeping options open and other lines of support clear. There is a basic instability within that will eventually become evident in behavior. You cannot trust such a person, for he or she is like Aesop’s crow, trying to walk down two paths at once. The implied call is for commitment. “Put all your eggs in one basket,” and make that basket God. Without commitment, prayer is in vain. James 4:1–10 will make this crystal clear.
1:9 One sign of trust in God is the ability to see beyond present circ*mstances. Here James returns to a theme of verse 2 and makes it more concrete when he says, The brother in humble circ*mstances ought to take pride.… The person must be the brother, for only the Christian has the resources to see beyond the present circ*mstances. The believer is a member of the community that belongs to the coming age but also a member of a community of the poor in the present age. The term humble circ*mstances indicates not just someone who lacks material goods and thus leads a hand-to-mouth existence struggling to get the bare necessities of life (and perhaps at times not succeeding), but also someone socially despised. This believer is a person whose lot in life has humbled him or her.
This believer is to take pride in his high position. The call is for Christians to exult or take pride in their state. What a contrast to their perceived social standing! What could such people possibly take pride in? The answer is “in their exalted position.” It is not that God will lift Christians up in the future but that God has already lifted them up. Here you have the poor Christian, who knows he or she is an heir to the universe (Matt. 5:3, 5; James 2:5). This is the rejoicing of Mary, who saw God filling the hungry and exalting the poor in her own person (Luke 1:52–53). This person realizes that the outward, depressed circ*mstances are not the essence of the situation. Such a Christian is not merely a rich person, not simply one of the powerful of Palestine, but a child of God destined as heir to a worldwide kingdom. He or she does have plenty in which to take pride, but it is only apparent to those with faith and trust.
1:10 The rich, however, are hardly in such a position. They surely seem in a position in which to take pride. After all they suffer no lack of material goods, famine does not haunt them, their children are well fed and healthy, they are powerful in the city, and they receive respect from all around them (cf. Ps. 73). Should they not rejoice in their prosperity as a gift from God? Not so, writes James, they should instead take pride in their low position.
Two comments may clarify this reasoning. First, the one who is rich may mislead the reader into supplying “Christian,” which does not appear in the Greek text. “Rich” in James always indicates one outside the community, a nonbelieving person. The rich, in fact, are the oppressors of the community (2:6; 5:1–6)
Second, the call to take pride is ironic in two senses. On the one hand, when the rich are converted they share their goods with and identify with the poor “scum” they formerly despised and persecuted. They become one of the group that calls itself the poor and that is exalted by God and despised by society. This is something, indeed, to take pride in, but it is precisely in losing their status as rich and being “brought down” to the humble level of the church that the rich have anything in which to take pride. On the other hand, since James expects most of the rich not to repent but to fall under God’s judgment, there is irony in calling them to take pride, because what they are at present proud about is indeed their humiliation. It is, as 5:1–6 will make clear, the very evidence that will condemn them, that will, as it were, eat their flesh in the Day of Judgment. They are children rejoicing in their mischief, but a parent is about to turn the corner, and the very object of their joy, the evidence of their disobedience, will humiliate them within seconds. They are rich—rich fools (Luke 12:13–21).
The fact is the rich will pass away like a wild flower. Wealth is very impressive, and the rich seem very important now, but if one looks at them from God’s perspective, one sees that the impressiveness is that of a soap bubble. Death is coming and the wealth will disappear and the rich will descend stripped naked to the depths of Hades (as shown by Job 15:30 and Prov. 2:8, in the Old Testament; in the Apocrypha, Sirach 14:11–19; 2 Baruch 82:3–9; or in the New Testament, Matt. 6:19–21). Again the proper perspective is critical. Only with God’s perspective, the perspective of the coming age, can one recognize this truth and the bitter irony it contains.
1:11 The picture James uses to impress this idea on his readers is a phenomenon most dramatically observed in Palestine. The anemones and cyclamen bloom beautifully in the morning, but as the sun rises and the day becomes hotter they droop, wither, and die. By evening the once impressive blooms are gone, never to be again. The picture is drawn, perhaps, from Isaiah 40:6–8 (also used in 1 Pet. 1:24), but the meaning is uniquely James’. The wealthy person is the flower that looks so impressive. But from the perspective of heaven this person’s situation is precarious indeed. Soon some trouble or disease will come, and where will that rich person be then? In the face of death wealth is absolutely meaningless (cf. Job 15:30; Prov. 2:8; Ps. 73; Matt. 6:19–21). The wealthy will fade away as they go about [their] business. Theirs will not be an eternal remembrance with glory as they hoped, but they will go down to the dust like any mortal, and slowly their monuments and very memory will crumble and disappear into oblivion. And that was all the rich had, for unlike the poor, who were “lifted up” and thus had an eternal place with God, the rich had all their lot here on earth and thus descend forever into darkness and oblivion from the very midst of their business.
At this point James begins the second half of his opening statement. Although he discusses the same topics, he does not repeat himself, for each topic is advanced. The inward causes of defection in the test are discussed rather than the benefits of trials in general. God’s good gift in relationship to the problem of speech, rather than in relationship to prayer and wisdom, is discussed. Putting faith into practice (which means sharing generously) is his focus now, rather than a discussion of the true standing of rich and poor. All of these topics will eventually coalesce in his major discussions and in his conclusion.
1:12 James begins with a beatitude: Blessed is the man. Like Jesus in Matthew 5:3–12, he pronounces a surprising group blessed, those who persevere under trial. It is not just the person who is tested who is considered happy or blessed but the person who endures or remains faithful. In 1:2–4 James has said that testing produces endurance; now he states that enduring creates true blessedness. Yet James is neither a masoch*st nor a stoic, neither claims that trials are fun nor that one should enjoy pain. Rather, he points out that the trials serve a purpose, the experiential proof of the reality of faith, and that that should give one the perspective for deep joy. From reactions to testing one knows one is truly committed and that when [one] has stood the test a reward will come. A person passing a test is like silver being assayed and receiving the hallmark of purity: God marks the person “approved”; his or her faith is sound.
Such a person will receive a reward, that is (in the Greek idiom), “a crown of life.” This pictures the last judgment as if it were a judges’ stand at the end of a race (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8). The victorious runner approaches and a laurel wreath is set on his or her head. But this wreath is life itself (cf. Rev. 2:10), and not just one winner but all who finish the race (endure) receive the reward, for God has promised it to all those who love him. Salvation has only one price, an enduring love of God. With this prospect in mind, Christians can consider themselves truly blessed or fortunate despite outward circ*mstances, for they already taste the reward.
1:13 There is, however, another possible response to a test: one can collapse and fail. Naturally someone about to “give in” does not want to take responsibility for the failure, for that would be totally inconsistent with a self-image of being a “good Christian,” so he or she rationalizes: “The test was too hard; God is at fault for sending it.”
James warns against such a reaction: When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” Such a conclusion would readily suggest itself to James’ monotheistic audience. Is God not sovereign? James refuses to answer this question, for such a discussion would obscure the real point. This person does not want deeper understanding, but an excuse. The claim that the test comes from God is not at heart a theological analysis but a placement of blame for the failure; it is an accusation.
James rejects this accusation for two reasons. First, “evil people should not put God to the test” (the phrase God cannot be tempted by evil is a misunderstanding of the Greek). Israel had done this many times (at least ten times: Num. 14:22); every time they faced suffering, they blamed God, doubting his will and ability to help them. But the Old Testament responded, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test as you tested him at Massah” (Deut. 6:16). These Christians must not make the same mistakes Israel did, testing God.
Second, he does not tempt anyone. God does not wish evil on others; he does not cause evil; he does not test in the sense that he tries to trip someone up. James does not continue this explanation and clear up the issue of theodicy, for he has said enough for his purposes: God can be trusted. The cause of one’s failure does not lie in God.
1:14 One would expect James to continue by blaming the devil, but he does nothing of the kind, although he does believe that the devil plays a role (see James 4:7). Instead he writes, Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. The real essence of temptation is not external, that is, “the devil made me do it,” but internal. “I have sinned … by my fault, my very own fault,” is the only “excuse.” Whatever evil forces may set up the external circ*mstances, it is the internal response that turns them into a test.
James clearly agrees with Paul. Using pictures from trapping and fishing (enticed and dragged away) to show the alluring nature of the “bait,” its apparent harmlessness, and its disastrous results, he reveals the enticer within, evil desire. Paul’s term for this entity is “sin,” or “flesh,” that is, fallen human nature: “I am a mortal man, sold as a slave to sin.” “By myself I can serve God’s law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin” (Rom. 7:14, 25). The desires of people are good by creation, for they lead them to enjoy creation, to eat, to procreate, and so on, but they have been corrupted so that they also lead them to lust, to steal, and to fornicate. The external situation could not affect people at all unless the internal voice of their own nature was saying, “Go ahead; you deserve it; it feels good.”
1:15 The desire of the person who gives in to the enticement is here pictured as a prostitute or adulteress rather than a trap or hook. She has successfully used her wiles, been fertilized, and now carries within her a conceptus. Yet, “No one need know,” she whispers to her illegitimate lover. The inner defection from the life of faith and trust need never be seen by others. But the womb of the heart cannot hold the illegitimate thing forever; desire’s child comes to birth, and its name is sin. James has seen a truth that Jesus proclaimed in Mark 7:20–23, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, … envy, slander, arrogance and folly.”
The test-desire-sin chain does not end there; it continues one more link to death. Paul knew this truth (Rom. 6:23) as did John (1 John 2:16–17; 3:14), but James puts it more graphically. The child sin does not go away; instead this bastard offspring grows to full maturity and then she too produces an offspring, a monstrous, pathogenic, unwanted offspring—death. Here is the result of failing the test. The person is on the way from desire to sin, to maturity in sin, to death. Paul’s chain in Romans 7:7–12 is reproduced here. James allows no inner deception. It must end in death. There is only one escape, and that he gives in a contrasting chain in the following verses (1:16–18).
1:16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Deceived about what? Does this verse end the previous paragraph and refer to a belief that one could blame God or harbor desire or sin without any consequences? Or does it refer to a deception about where testing comes from (1:13)? Or does it head the following paragraph and refer to a failure to realize that God gives good and brings salvation? Structurally, the third option is preferred, for the address my dear brothers normally introduces a new paragraph. But this functions as a hinge verse: To be deceived about one of these items is to be deceived about them all, for the following paragraph is simply the negation of the previous one. If one blames God for a test, one is already edging toward sin and denying God’s goodness. James believes his readers are true Christians (brothers) but he fears they might wander from faith, which is the implication of don’t be deceived; he fears they might fall into the error of doubting God’s goodness, which would be fatal to faith.
1:17 In contrast to a view of God as sending a test stands the view that God gives good things: Every good and perfect gift is from above. The phrase itself is poetic and may be a quotation from some well-known proverb altered by James to stress from above. To say God gives such good things, of course, is to deny that he gives evil things, for the two are incompatible.
Yet James may intend a deeper truth than “God is good.” He has already stated that God is a gracious giver with respect to all who ask (1:5). The chief good being asked in that context is wisdom, which in 3:15 will again be referred to, this time using the same term that occurs here (from above). Thus the best gift of all, referred to repeatedly in James, is wisdom, which helps one in the test. Therefore the deeper message is: God does not send the test; he gives the good gift of wisdom that enables us to stand in the test. He gives the antidote, not the poison.
Furthermore, the character of God is not subject to change. He is the Father of the heavenly lights. The reference is to creation, and it (and the one to the new creation in the next verse) indicates the extent of God’s goodness. The lights of Genesis 1:18, that is, the sun and moon, were placed there for humanity’s good. But this fact in turn suggests a contrast. The sun and moon were notorious for change like shifting shadows (not the best translation, for while James’ language it obscure it is an astronomical phrase referring to the lack of constancy in the heavenly “lights”), but God, by way of contrast, has no eclipse, no rising and setting, no phases, no obscurity due to clouds. His character is absolutely constant, trustworthy, and dependable.
1:18 As proof of God’s goodwill—as if creation itself were not sufficient—James asserts, He chose to give us birth through the word of truth. First, what God did, he did by choice. His action was not an accident or a response to necessity. He chose, and therefore the action shows the essence of his character.
Second, he gave us birth. On the one hand, this action is creation. The Father of Lights is also the Father of Humanity and has willed all human life. On the other hand, not only did God produce creation, but he also produced new creation: He has produced the new birth or redemption in all believers (John 3:3–8; Rom. 12:2; Eph. 1:5; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23; 1 John 3:9). This statement produces a startling contrast: Desire brings to birth, but it bears sin and death; God brings to birth redemption and life.
Third, God does this new act of creation through the word of truth. This expression might at first glance be thought a reference to the creative word of God (Gen. 1) or to the veracity of all he says (e.g., Ps. 119:43), but surely in this passage something more is meant. What word in the New Testament era was more “the word of truth” than the gospel? The phrase is a semitechnical one designating the proclamation of God’s action in Christ (2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:18; Col. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 1:25). God purposely sets his second creation, his re-creation, into motion by sending out the word of the gospel.
The result of this act is also beneficent, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. “We,” says James, “are like a harvest. We are the first ripe fruit of God’s new creation, promising the full harvest to come.” Like Paul, James believes God will redeem all of creation, not just humanity (Rom. 8:18–25). The present rebirth of believers promises more to come. But the first are the best, the specially holy portion. Thus James underlines God’s good gift and intention in the lives of the Christians.
1:19 Deliberately paralleling the style of 1:16, James warns, My dear brothers, take note of this. James 1:16–18 discussed wisdom as a gift of life descending from God (cf. 1:5–8); now comes the related topic—the wise person controls his or her speech (cf. 3:1–18), for speech-ethics were a very important topic in both Jewish literature and the world in which James lived. James continues with a proverb: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. As shocking as this saying is to this modern age of express-your-feelings, it was accepted wisdom in the biblical period: “He who guards his lips guards his life, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin” (Prov. 13:3). “Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Prov. 29:20). “Do not get upset quickly, for anger resides in the lap of fools” (Eccles. 7:9). The truly wise and godly person in scripture is not the one who always has something to say but the person who listens to others, prayerfully considers, and only then speaks in measured tones.
James thinks of this proverb not just as a personal truth for each Christian but also as part of his concern for communal harmony. In 3:1 he points to conflicts among teachers that in 3:13–18 can lead to party spirit and jealousy. These were well known in the early church, encouraged by those drunk with the heady wine of the newly outpoured Spirit and preoccupied with their gift or ministry rather than the good of the church. James counsels caution and listening rather than quick speech and sharp denunciation.
1:20 But what of righteous indignation? Man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. James never states his reason for this statement, but several appear in the New Testament. First, once the angry feeling begins to be expressed, it is by nature immoderate and uncontrollable, which made even Hellenistic pagan writers condemn anger. Second, anger is incompatible with the teaching of Jesus, particularly his command to love one’s enemy (Matt. 5:38–48) and his direct condemnation of hating one’s brother (Matt. 5:21–26). Third, human anger usurps the role of God as the only judge and vindicator. In 5:7–9 James will indicate that the Christian is to wait for God’s vindication, not vindicate himself. A similar note is sounded in Hebrews 10:30–39, Romans 12:19, and repeatedly in 1 Peter. The proper response to suffering is meekness and endurance, for God is the only true judge. Thus human anger cannot bring about the righteous life that God desires, either in the sense of bringing about the righteousness God will establish in the final day (which may be in mind here; cf. 5:7–11) or in the sense of meeting God’s present standard of righteousness. One need only to reflect on Moses’ impulsive murder of the Egyptian taskmaster (Exod. 2:11–16) to discover a fine illustration of this principle.
1:21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent. This clause is negative; the stress of the verse is clearly on the positive (accept the word), but the negative is the necessary prelude. Unless one recognizes sin for what it is, ceases justifying it, and decisively rejects it, further progress is unlikely. Thus in get rid James uses a term for conversion, picturing it like the removal of a soiled garment. The moral filth may be any moral evil, especially greediness. But he focuses on anger, or evil in speech, in the evil that is so prevalent (better translated “every trace of malice” or “the malice which is so abundant”). Not just outward anger, but also all malice, is to be ruthlessly chased from the heart.
With malice out, they can accept the word that he plants in your hearts. These people have received the “word” of the gospel, for they are members of the Christian community. But the word already planted in their hearts must be acted upon or accepted if it is to save them. It is not enough to be convinced about Jesus; one must commit oneself to Jesus and his teaching, and such a commitment is the changed lifestyle James is seeking.
In making this commitment they humbly submit to God. James wrote in Greek “in meekness,” indicating a submission to God as opposed to the self-aggrandizement that quick speech and anger demonstrate. Meekness is itself a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23; James 3:13) and a mark of those who will receive the Kingdom (Matt. 5:5). In this context it is a call to humble oneself before God and accept God’s way of leaving vengeance to him, to not reject the gospel teaching and take vengeance into one’s own hands. This humble acceptance of the teaching of Jesus has a saving effect.
1:22 The topic of accepting or obeying the word shifts James from the idea of speech to that of charitable action. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves refers to the person who is self-congratulatory about knowledge of scripture or mastery of the apostolic traditions about Jesus. It is not that such persons failed to learn the word of the apostolic teaching. They may be learned in scripture and accurate “scribes” of the teaching of Jesus. But they are merely listening. No matter how extensive one’s scriptural knowledge, how amazing one’s memory, it is self-deception if that is all there is.
Do what it says is the critical point. It is not what one knows, but what one does that counts. True knowledge is the prelude to action, and it is the obedience to the word that counts in the end.
1:23–24 Having stated his thesis in the previous verse, James illustrates the merely listening position with a metaphor from daily life. It is like someone who carefully examines his or her face in a mirror in the morning. The beard is trimmed, the hair carefully combed into place, or the make-up applied. For the moment looking at his or her human face is an absorbing occupation. But once the morning ablutions are complete, no more thought is given to the matter; the person immediately forgets what he looks like, often operating during the day on the basis of a self-image at odds with his or her physical reality. If that is where it ends with scripture, all one’s learning about the Bible or theology has exactly as much value for one’s life as that morning facial examination.
1:25 But the [person] who looks intently … and continues to do this … will be blessed in what he does. James makes the contrast two ways. First, the blessed person acts on what he or she knows rather than being one to forget what he has heard, the forgetting being not a loss from memory but a failure to live the teaching in the practical situation. James repeats the point, saying the person puts it into practice and that he or she is blessed in what he does. Action receives the accent. Second, the blessed person continues to do this. The theme of continuing, enduring, or remaining also occurs in James 1:2–4; 1:12; and 5:7–11. It is not the person who momentarily notices and obeys a command of Christ who will be blessed, but the person who is characterized by obedience to Christ’s commands—for whom they are a chosen lifestyle. Such a person will indeed be blessed in what he does.
This “doer” studies the perfect law that gives freedom. By this James means not the Stoic rule of reason or the Jewish law, but the Jewish scriptures as interpreted and completed by the teaching of Jesus. In other words, the perfect law is the teaching of traditions from Jesus such as those embodied in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:17). Paul and James both agree that the teaching of Jesus is binding on the Christian and that no other way marks out the path of blessing and salvation. Freedom is not license but the ability to live and to fulfill “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2; cf. Gal. 5:13; 1 Cor. 9:21; 1 Cor. 7:10, 25—in the latter two verses a teaching of Christ ends discussion for Paul). This law is freeing, in that by submitting to Christ one is freed from bondage to sin and death, including all legalism (in the sense of meriting one’s salvation). Thus James is saying that it is the person who lives this freedom who will be blessed by God, not the person who only learns about it.
1:26 James has completed his opening statement. All that remains is to sum up in such a way that a transition is made to the next section. Verses 26–27 are that summary and transition.
If anyone considers himself religious … That is, does a person believe him- or herself to be a good, pious Christian? The focus is on religious performance, probably including such acts as worship, prayer and fasting, and systematic giving. James does not condemn the activities, but adds, and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. In other words, religious practices are fine, but if they are not coupled to an ethical lifestyle they are worse than useless, for they become self-deceptions. James’ specific concern is the control of the tongue, by which he means angry outbursts, criticism, and complaining (cf. 1:19; 3:1, 13; 4:11–12; and 5:9). Criticism, judging, and gossiping reveal hearts not yet submitted to the rule of Christ. These are people whose overt religious practices, however Christian, are no more salvific than idolatry, also called worthless in scripture (Acts 14:15; 1 Cor. 3:20; 1 Pet. 1:18). James, like Jesus (Mark 12:28–34; John 13:34) and the prophets (Hos. 6:6; Isa. 1:1–10; Jer. 7:21–28), ruthlessly unmasks such self-deception so that his readers can recognize their true condition before it is too late.
1:27 In contrast to the pious person with the sharp tongue, the religion that God our Father considers pure and faultless is not primarily ritual and pious practices but looking after orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself from being polluted by the world. The first characteristic, that of active charity and concern for the helpless and weak, is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (Deut. 14:29; 24:17–22) as well as the New (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Tim. 5:3–16). The orphan and widow, along with the foreigner and Levite, formed the traditional poor of early Israel. True piety, then, will help the weak, the poor, for God is the helper of the helpless (Deut. 10:16–17).
The second characteristic focuses on the world, a designation common in Paul and John for human culture, mores, and institutions (1 Cor. 1–3; 5:19; Eph. 2:2; John 12:31; 15:18–17:16; 1 John 2:15–17). True piety is not conformity to human culture but transformation into Christ’s image (Rom. 12:1–2). For James this means specifically rejecting the motives of competition, personal ambition, and accumulation that lie at the root of a lack of charity and an abundance of community conflict (e.g., 4:1–4). In declaring this alone to be true religion in God’s eyes, James declares that conversion is meaningless unless it leads to a changed life.
Additional Notes
1:1 The twelve tribes of Israel were God’s chosen people in the Old Testament. James looks on the church as the continuation of that people of God. The church includes the remnant of the old Israel and takes into itself the converts from the Gentiles. It is therefore “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), the people of God in the new age of the Spirit (cf. Rom 4:13–25; Gal. 5:21–31).
Scattered among the nations is a technical term for the dispersion or Diaspora. After the exile of Jews from Palestine in 586 B.C., most did not return. Instead they spread out through the cities of Asia and Europe, westward to Rome and Spain, south to Egypt, and east to Babylon and Persia. To the Jews living in Palestine, these people were Diaspora, scattered people, exiles from the land to which they belonged. James uses this term for Christians, for they are also “exiles” in the land in which they live. In much the same way, Peter refers to Christians as sojourners or pilgrims (1 Pet. 1:1, 17; 2:11).
1:2 The phrase consider it pure joy has as its central word the Greek word “joy,” charan, which forms a wordplay with the chairein, “greetings” of v. 1. James uses such wordplay links to tie his letter together despite his tendency to juxtapose topics.
The structure of vv. 2–4 is that of a chain saying, which is also found in Rom. 5:3–5 and 1 Pet. 1:6–7. In 1 Peter, in particular, some identical phrases are used. The saying appears to have been widely and loosely used within the early church, which means that each author felt free to adapt it to make his own point. The basis of the structure is probably some statement of Jesus similar to that in Matt. 5:11–12, “Happy are you when men insult you. Rejoice and be glad, because a great reward is kept for you in heaven.” For further reading see D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 113, 117–19.
The idea of trials is not a new idea to the readers of this letter, for it is deeply rooted in Judaism. The earliest reference is in Gen. 22:1, an incident referred to in James 2:21, where God tests Abraham. God is also said to test the Israelites in the wilderness, but unlike Abraham they fail the test (Num. 14:20–24). As one moves into the intertestamental period, one finds the famous reference in Sirach 2:1–6:
My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation. Set thy heart aright and endure firmly, and be not fearful in time of calamity.… Accept whatsoever is brought upon thee, and be patient in disease and poverty. For gold is proved in the fire, and men acceptable to God in the furnace of affliction.
(Cf. Jubilees 8:25, or the Dead Sea Scrolls 1 QS 10, 17, 1 QH 5:15–17; 1 QM 16:15–17:3.) Thus the early church had a long tradition upon which to draw that expected faith to be tested. See H. Seesemann “Peira,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 23–26, for further data.
1:3 The phrase the testing of your faith is a single word in Greek, dokimion. It properly refers to the means of testing in this passage, although in 1 Pet. 1:7 it refers to the result of the test, i.e., genuineness. The means, however unpleasant they may be, produce a good result. They are not simply negative, destroying ungenuine faith, but positive, if viewed in the right light.
The term perseverance, Greek hypomonē, is virtually a technical term in the New Testament. Paul uses the term sixteen times (2 Cor. 6:4; 12:12; 1 Thess. 1:3), and Revelation finds it most important (1:9; 2:2; 13:10; 14:12). It is obvious, from this fact and the fact that its use for Abraham, Job, etc., is found in intertestamental works, that the virtue is important in a community suffering persecution. The Jews after the exile, and particularly after the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) were concerned about holding fast to the faith despite opposition, disadvantage, or even persecution. They looked to the Old Testament to supply examples, which they exegeted accordingly. Likewise the church found itself vulnerable as a despised and persecuted minority within Judaism and, later, the Roman Empire. Fly-by-night or flash-in-the-pan Christianity would not do. It is not those who apostasize and fall away but “he who endures to the end” who will be saved (Mark 13:13; Matt. 10:22; 24:13). Thus endurance is one of the cardinal virtues of the Christian life, not a side issue. To endure means to copy Christ in his endurance and to assure oneself of future blessedness.
1:4 The term must finish its work is literally “have its perfect [or complete] work.” It is this phraseology that suggested to many commentators that a specific virtue is in mind. Instead of a single virtue, however, “You are that perfect work” (M. Dibelius, James, p. 74).
The idea of perfection is not original in James. Noah is the archetypal perfect person: “Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generation” (Gen. 6:9). He kept God’s law, or he was “of stable integrity, not contaminated by divergent motives or conflicts between thoughts and deeds” (P. J. DuPlessis, Telios: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament, pp. 94–99). Thus the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls could both think of themselves as perfect because of their inward and outward dedication to God (1 QS 2:1–2; 14:7; 1 QH 1:36) and still long for a higher perfection (1 QS 4:20–22). For Paul, Christians are also already the perfect or mature (1 Cor. 2:6), but becoming perfect or mature people is still a process going on with its goal in the future (Eph. 4:13; cf. Col. 4:12; Phil. 3:15). For Matthew, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, perfection consists in copying God (imitatio dei, Matt. 5:48), but in both Matthew and Paul this was re-interpreted in terms of a more available example, God-in-Flesh, Jesus. Thus it becomes copying Christ (imitatio Christi, Matt. 19:21; cf. Phil. 2:5ff.). Perfection, then, is a tension. It is both possible and impossible, both present and future. See further, W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, pp. 212–13; and R. Schippers, “Goal,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 59–66. The important fact to consider is the eschatological nature of perfection, its “now” and “not yet” tension, as well as the fact that in its realizable form it is focused on copying God and Christ and thus needs divine revelation and human obedience.
1:5 The English wordplay lacking (v. 4)—lacks (v. 5) is also present in Greek. This catchword linking of ideas is a favorite method by which James joins them into a unity.
The idea of wisdom in James is not simply insight or God’s law (as in Sirach 4:17; Wisdom 7:15; 8:21) but a gift of the coming new age that can now be found in those who belong to that age (as in 2 Baruch 44:14; 2 Esdras 8:52; 1 Enoch 5:8; 98:1–9; 100:6). As these Jewish parallels (and others in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 1 QS 11; CD 2; 6:3; 11 QPsa 154) show, Jewish readers would recognize a tension. Wisdom will only be fully possessed in the coming age, but the righteous remnant (“the wise” of Dan. 11–12) already have a foretaste of it in this age. It is this that leads people to perfection, a relationship between wisdom and perfection that Paul also recognized (1 Cor. 2:4–6). See J. A. Kirk, “The Meaning of Wisdom in James.”
God is a good giver (Prov. 3:23; cf. Didache 4:7; Hermas Mandate 9), but he is also a generous giver (Hermas Mandate 2). The term for generosity, haplos, appears in the New Testament only here. It is related to the term haplotēs, which means sincerity. Epictetus shows the meaning of haplos when he writes, “Stop letting yourself be drawn this way and that … but be either this or that simply and with all your mind” (Discourses II, 2, 13). The same sense of simplicity and sincerity is to be in human giving according to Jesus, for in a context on giving he says, “If your eyes are clear [haplotēs], your whole body will be full of light” (Matt. 6:22), which is an idiom for sincere giving, as bad eyes were for stinginess. On this term see further B. Gärtner, “Simplicity,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 571–72.
1:6 “Faith” has far more than one meaning in James. Here and in 1:3, 2:5, and 5:15, it means commitment, trust; in 2:14–26 it means intellectual assent; and in 2:1 it means the body of truth about Jesus that is believed. This first use is most like Paul; the others differ from Paul’s. See O. Michel, “Faith,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 587–606.
To doubt shows that the person is unlike God. God gives sincerely, with an undivided mind. The doubter prays, but without an undivided mind. He is not at all certain God will answer. The figure of the swaying wave was popular in Jewish and Greek literature, e.g., Sirach 33:1–3:
No evil befalls the man who fears the Lord, but in trial he will deliver him again and again. A wise man will not hate the law, but he who is hypocritical about it is like a boat in a storm. A man of understanding will trust in the law.
1:7–8 The chief term in these verses is dipsychos, translated as double-minded. The term itself is found first in James and may have been coined by the author. The idea, however, has deep Jewish roots. A person is to seek God with his or her whole heart (Deut. 6:5; 18:3), and thus to doubt or have a double heart is in itself evil, a mark of hypocrisy (Ps. 12:1–2; 1 Chron. 12:33). Jewish tradition was constantly calling people to a clear choice: It cannot be God and Baal or God and Egypt; it must be either one or the other. The sharp contrast continues in Sirach (e.g., 33:7–15) and later literature. Testament of Levi 13:1 calls, “Fear the Lord your God with your whole heart, and walk in simplicity according to all his Law.” One notices how simplicity (haplotēs from James 1:5) is important. Testament of Benjamin 6:5 adds, “The good mind hath not two tongues, of blessing and of cursing … of hypocrisy and of truth …; but it hath one disposition, uncorrupt and pure, concerning all men.” The people at Qumran were likewise concerned lest someone who had outwardly (and perhaps meaning it at the time) pledged to follow the way of God would turn back and follow his or her evil nature to the detriment of the community:
No man shall walk in the stubbornness of his heart so that he strays after his heart and eyes and evil inclination, but he shall circumcise in the Community the foreskin of evil inclination and of stiffness of neck that they may lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the community of the everlasting Council (1 QS 5:4–5).
People who did turn back were surely condemned:
As for them, they dissemble,
they plan devilish schemes.
They seek Thee with a double heart
and are not confirmed in Thy truth.
A root bearing poisoned and bitter fruit
is in their designs;
they walk in stubbornness of heart
and seek Thee among idols,
and they set before them
the stumbling-block of their sin.
(1 QH 4:13–14)
Paul has a similar concern, although expressed in less colorful language, in Romans 6–8. People might commit to Christ but then “walk after the flesh.” Paul reacts to the idea with horror. By no means should such instability be allowed. Single-hearted devotion to God is the order of the day.
James’ concern with a double heart and instability was later picked up by Hermas (Mandate 9 for dipsychos and Mandate 2.3 and 5.2.7 for instability, which Hermas considers demonic in origin). But the idea is weakened there. James uses it with the full force of tradition. Hermas has concern simply about effective prayer.
1:9 James does not use the usual term for poor, ptōchos, but tapeinos, which in other contexts means humble or socially low or unimportant (2 Cor. 7:6; 10:1). In this context it clearly means materially poor because of its contrast with rich. Tapeinos appears multiple times in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) for six different Hebrew terms meaning poor or oppressed. It is especially suitable, because of its dual connotation of humble and poor, to translate ‘ani, a frequent Hebrew term for the humble poor (perhaps behind Matt. 5:3 as well). It is also interesting that it appears in Prov. 3:34, since James will later quote this verse (4:6); it may already be on his mind. See also Judg. 6:15; Pss. 9:39; 33:18; Amos 8:6; Isa. 11:4, and W. Grundmann, “Tapeinos,” in TDNT, vol. 8, pp. 1–26.
The term ought to take pride is the Greek verb kauchaomai, which outside of its use here and in 4:16 is always used in the New Testament by Paul (thirty-five times). Normally this verb means pride or boasting in a negative sense and is thus hardly a command to the Christian (Gal. 6:13; Rom. 2:23; 1 Cor. 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:12; Eph. 2:9). In the Old Testament, however, one could boast in God (Pss. 32:11; 149:5). This positive sense is taken over by Paul when he speaks of boasting in God or in Christ (Rom. 5:11; 1 Cor. 1:31; Phil. 3:3). It is this positive sense that James intends, for to be glad or to boast in one’s exaltation is to boast, not about one’s own works, but about what God has done for one. Thus it is a form of boasting in God. It is therefore interesting that Paul uses this verb in Rom. 5:3; a passage parallel to James 1:2 and 1 Pet. 1:6. This shows that in Paul’s mind the positive sense of boasting is close to the eschatological joy expressed by James and Peter in their respective terms. The idea of such joy will appear three times in this one chapter in James (1:2; 1:9; 1:12).
1:10 James has two ways of handling rich persons. First, he refers to them using the term plousios. In these three instances they are unbelievers, opposers of the gospel (1:10; 2:6; 5:1ff.). Second, he refers to them using circumlocutions that describe them but never call them rich (2:2; 4:13). In these cases, the people are wealthier members of the Christian community. In contrast, the term “poor” (ptōchos) is at times in James a name for the community, following Jewish usage for the remnant of Israel (e.g., Psalms of Solomon).
The idea that the rich will be brought low and the poor exalted is a familiar reversal-of-fortunes theme. One encounters it in the Old Testament (1 Sam. 2:7) and frequently in the psalms (e.g., Pss. 37; 73) as well as in Luke’s Magnificat (Luke 1:53). A similar theme occurs in 1 Enoch. More importantly, the Lukan beatitudes express it clearly (Luke 6:20–26):
20 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.”
The wealthy have absolutely nothing to rejoice about. Like the rich man in the parable (Luke 16:19–31), they are on their way to hell. James is here applying this teaching and exhorting his congregation to act on it.
1:11The picture is an image that is very widespread. One sees it in Testament of Job 33 and in Pliny, Natural History 21, 1. It occurs in Ps. 103:15–16, which, along with Isa. 40:6, might be in James’ mind, and in Matt. 6:30 and Luke 12:28 (although with a different application). Though it is especially suited to Palestine, other warm climates would also find the expression meaningful.
Some scholars have seen with scorching heat (kausoni) as indicating the sirocco, or hot desert wind, as in Job 27:21; Jer. 18:17; and Hos. 12:1. In fact, it may well be referred to in Ps. 103:16. But this is unlikely (although tempting, for the sirocco is distinctly Palestinian), for the sirocco has nothing to do with the sun rising. It blows constantly day and night for the whole period of its effect. Thus James’ description is best seen as a proverbial reference to the sun’s withering activity in warm, dry climates.
The rich person is destroyed. The verb maranthesetai literally means “to wither” and is applied to the withering of plants and, metaphorically, the death of persons. One might think, then, that this is simply a reference to the impermanence of the rich. They will die and all their deeds will crumble. But James is probably thinking on a deeper level, as Jesus does in Luke 12:16–21. The person not only faces the sun of life’s troubles but the scorching heat of God’s judgment (as 5:1–6 will show). The fading away is not simply a withering, but a destruction, an eternal fact that should strike terror in the hearts of all tempted to the same lifestyle.
1:12 The term blessed (makarios) is also used in the Beatitudes and Psalms (e.g., Ps. 1). Its opposite is “woe.”
The idea of persevering (hypomenō) is very important in the New Testament (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Rom. 12:12; 1 Cor. 13:7; 2 Tim. 2:12, etc., use the verb; Luke 21:19; Rom. 2:7; 8:25; 2 Cor. 6:4; 1 Thess. 1:3; Rev. 13:10, and twenty-six other passages use the noun, hypomonē). It was critical that Christians be taught to endure, or else the church would have vanished at the first approach of persecution. The virtue was also valued in some Jewish circles (e.g., Testament of Job and Testament of Joseph).
Paul uses the idea of standing the test five times (cf. also 2 Tim. 2:15). The adjective dokimos indicates human or divine approval and is what Paul hoped for himself at the last judgment. He, like James, never assumed this final approval until he arrived there (e.g., Phil. 3:12–16).
The idea of receiving the crown of life at the last judgment is expressed in identical language in Rev. 2:10 and in similar language (“the crown of glory”) in 1 Pet. 5:4.
The promise to those who love him (cf. James 2:5) is nowhere explicitly stated in scripture, although its general sense is frequent enough (Exod. 20:5–6; 1 Cor. 2:9; Eph. 6:24). Some have argued that this verse cites an unrecorded saying of Jesus, which is possible, but not provable.
1:13 When James denies that God is tempting me and asserts that he does not tempt anyone, he is following Judaism. Although early parts of the Old Testament could state without a qualm “God tests” (e.g., Abraham in Gen. 22:1 and David in 2 Sam. 24:1), after the exile Judaism found these statements too facile. Thus in 2 Chron. 21:1 the devil, not God, tests David; in Job the test is initiated and carried out by Satan, although God gives permission; and in Jubilees 17–19 the devil (Mastema) initiates and carries out the testing of Abraham. For James, God is sovereign, but it is other forces that will and cause evil.
One reason for James’ dealing with the question may stem from the recitation of the Greek form of the Lord’s Prayer, “Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” In Greek it sounds as if God might be the agent of testing and as if one must beg for deliverance. Yet the Aramaic form of the prayer (and the applications in Luke 22:40) clearly shows the intention to be, “Cause that we not enter the test,” which fits with “and deliver us from the Evil One.” God is the one who prevents the devil from testing the Christian or sets limits on the extent of the test.
The retranslation God cannot be tempted by evil is a translation of “God is apeirastos.” The problem is that apeirastos is a rare word that occurs first in James and then almost nowhere else in Greek literature. The translation preferred in this commentary, “God ought not to be tested by evil men,” is based on the use of the word by the church fathers, the form of the word, and the Old Testament teaching that prohibits testing God. See further P. H. Davids, “The Meaning of Apeirastos,” NTS 24 (1978), pp. 386–91. On the testing tradition in general see B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son.
1:14 The citation of desire as the tempter draws upon a major Jewish tradition concerning the evil impulse in humanity (the evil yêṣer The yêṣer is simply undifferentiated desire, striving for whatever it sees. It is not the self or ego of the person (it fits more closely Freud’s id), but unless it is limited by the Law or Torah (in Judaism) or some other counterforce, it will control the ego. Thus Paul sees himself as controlled by sin, the flesh, or the law of sin, despite his recognition of its evil nature and his approval of the law—for Paul Torah was not enough, it simply let one know how enslaved one really was (Rom. 7). Paul’s answer is that the Spirit is the counterforce releasing one from desire/sin (Rom. 8). James will give a similar answer in his call for wisdom (1:17; 3:13–18, etc.). The important fact for him in this passage, as for the Jews, was that of personal responsibility. The person had to admit that he or she was to blame; sin rested in him or her, not in something external. Thus in the Christian tradition the Episcopal Church confessed, we are “miserable sinners … there is no health in us.” For further discussion of the yêṣer tradition, see F. C. Porter, “The Yeser Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin”; and G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1, pp. 479–93.
1:15 The picture of desire as an enticing woman may have been drawn from Proverbs. In Proverbs 1–9 wisdom appears as the good and holy woman who leads one to life and God. In chaps. 5 and 7 another woman appears, who entices and leads away those to whom wisdom is calling. She promises to fulfill their desires, but the end result is death. The use of the picture of the arrow and the snare in Prov. 7:22–23 is very appropriate in the context of James. Likewise the image of adultery is very appropriate, for the evil impulse is often connected to adultery in Jewish literature. Cf. S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 250.
Some authors see in this verse a reference to Jewish views of Satan’s attack upon Eve or the soul, particularly in the sexual language (for Satan’s seduction of Eve see 4 Macc. 18:7–8; Apocalypse of Moses 19:3; Testament of Reuben 2; and Testament of Benjamin 7). This reference is unlikely for the female (desire) is the aggressor here in the first case of birth, and in the second, no paternal figure is named. James, who wishes to stress personal responsibility, would hardly leave open the possibility of blaming both Satan and Eve for one’s sin.
On the relationship of sin to the heart see E. Arnold, Inner Land (Rifton, N.Y.: Plough Publishers, 1976), esp. chap. 3, “The Heart.”
The relationship of sin and death is abundantly clear in scripture: Gen. 2:17; Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 5:12 (also include Jesus’ references to Gehenna and outer darkness, Revelation’s to “the second death,” and 1 John 5:16–17). That James sees this as more than physical death (the consequence of sin in 1 Cor. 11:30; 5:5; and 1 Tim. 1:20), is clear in James 5:19–20.
1:16 The idea of deception (planaō) occurs frequently in scripture, not referring to a simple failure in judgment, but to serious deviation from the truth, which strikes at the heart of faith itself: Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 6:7; 1 John 1:8; 4:6; 2 Pet. 2:18; 3:17; and frequently in Revelation. Cf. H. Braun, “Planaō,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 242–51.
1:17 The original quotation from which every good and perfect gift is taken may have been, “Every Gift is good and every present is perfect,” which roughly translates “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” James’ change was simply to add from above or “from heaven,” which altered the whole sense. Now, not people but God is the source of all perfect gifts. What God gives is not stated, but if our analysis of form is correct (Introduction, “Form”), then this is parallel to 1:5–8 and thus concerns wisdom, the best gift of all (as Luke 11:13), which is needed to counter the evil impulse of 1:2–4 and 1:12–15. The phrase added is frequently used to indicate the divine origin of God’s Spirit or of faith (in contrast to demonic or earthly origin): John 3; Shepherd of Hermas Mandate 9.11; 11.5.
The phrase Father of the heavenly lights is literally “Father of lights.” On the one hand this is a circumlocution. James, like a good Jew, avoids using the name of God where he does not feel it is necessary (as the rabbinic “The Holy One, blessed be he” rather than “God”). On the other hand, though this reflects James’ belief that God created the stars (Gen. 1:14–18; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 4:23; 21:35), it may also reflect a belief that God is more personally related to them than that, that the stars and planets are, or are ruled by, animate beings or spirits (Job 38:7; 1 Enoch 18:12–16; 1 QS 3:20; etc.). The imagery is clearly that of Judaism and not of the Hellenistic world, which did not use “lights” to refer to heavenly bodies. See further G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1, p. 403; and H. Conzelmann, “Phōs” TDNT, vol. 9, pp. 319–27.
The difficulty with the final phrase does not change like shifting shadows is partially a textual problem. It is obvious from the state of the Greek text that early copyists had problems in understanding exactly which phenomenon James had in mind: changing constellations, an eclipse, or nightfall. It was well known that the heavenly bodies changed (Sirach 17:31; 27:11; Wisdom 7:29; 1 Enoch 41; 72) and that God did not (Job 25:5). In fact, it was so well known that it is probably an error to ask James for too much precision about which phenomena he has in mind. The heavens change and are changed (darkened by the movements of other bodies). That fact contrasts clearly with their creator.
1:18 This whole verse breathes creation language. For example, the participle (in Greek) he chose is in the emphatic position just as it is in Philo’s works when referring to the creative desires of God. This fact has led some writers to argue that only the original creation of humanity is in mind, but the following language rules this out. Creation it is, but new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17).
That God chose to give us birth has been problematic to some, for strictly speaking the verb applies only to the female act of giving birth. But two pieces of data resolve the problem: (1) Female imagery is sometimes applied to God in scripture (Num. 11:12; Deut. 32:8; Deut. 32:18a in the Septuagint; Pss. 7:14; 90:2; Isa. 66:13), and (2) James needed an action parallel to desire in 1:15.
Regeneration language (which is very close to the Johannine tradition, e.g., John 3–13, 1 John 3:9–10) and new creation language (which is closer to Paul, e.g., 2 Cor. 5:17, Rom. 8:18–25) come together in this passage. The imagery is very fluid.
In that we might be a kind of firstfruits, a new type of imagery, harvest imagery, appears. In the Old Testament the first fruits may designate either the temporal order of the event (Christ is the first raised, 1 Cor. 15:20; Stephanus the first saved, 1 Cor. 16:15; the Christians are the first redeemed, 2 Thess. 2:13) or the quality of the group (Rev. 14:4). Here the reference to creation emphasizes temporal priority: The rebirth of Christians begins the redemption of all creation. See further G. Delling, “Haparchē,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 484–86.
1:19 The proverb comes from a Jewish context, as its language indicates (everyone is pas anthrōpos, a Semitism), but its wisdom is not only found widely in Jewish sources (Prov. 15:1; Sirach 1:22; 4:29; 6:33; Psalms of Solomon 16:10; m. Aboth 2:10) but also in pagan sources (Dio Chrysostom 32 [“Don’t be quick to anger but slow”]; Diogenes Laertius 8.23; Seneca Ira). In fact, so prevalent is the concern for controlled speech, including the control of anger, that W. R. Baker wrote a whole doctoral dissertation on this and other themes of speech-ethics as they relate to James (Personal Speech-Ethics: a Study of the Epistle of James against its Background [University of Aberdeen, 1986]). The one major difference between James (and other New Testament writers) and Jewish (including the Old Testament) and pagan writers on the topic is that James and the New Testament do not recommend silence, perhaps due to the urgency of spreading the gospel.
For anger, noise, and party strife in the New Testament, 1 Cor. 14; 1 Thess. 5:19–22; and 1 Tim. 1:3ff. are examples. See also the parties of 1 Cor. 1–3. It is not necessary to posit political agitation or Zealotism, as Bo Reicke does (James, p. 21), to find a setting for this proverb’s use in James’ community.
1:20 Anger, usually meaning the expression of hostility, was rejected by the Greeks, as H. Kleinknecht shows (“Orgē,” TDNT, vol. 5, p. 384). Later Jewish writers rejected it as incompatible with wisdom (Sirach 27:30; Wisdom 10:3; cf. Job 36:13; 18; Prov. 12:16; 27:3; 4; 29:8; 30:33). In Christian literature not only does the Sermon on the Mount reject anger using the same term as James does (Matt. 5:22), but anger is frequently included in lists of vices (Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8). Prayer is incompatible with anger (1 Tim. 2:8). Ephesians 4:26 (quoting Ps. 4:4) indicates that Paul did not want one to repress anger but to admit the emotion and sublimate it (e.g., through confrontation and reconciliation, forgiveness, or prayer) “before the sun sets.” Repressing it only makes an explosion more likely. See further H. C. Hahn, “Anger,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 105–13.
1:21 Get rid is a participle in Greek, clearly subordinate to the main verb, accept, although it precedes it in time. The word is frequently used in Christian literature for a change of lifestyle, e.g., Eph. 4:22; 1 Pet. 2:1; 1 Clement 13:1.
The word moral filth is used more outside the New Testament than within (e.g., in Epictetus or Philo). See further J. I. Packer, “Dirt, Filth, Refuse,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, p. 479.
The phrase the evil that is so prevalent may mean “a large amount of wickedness,” “a large amount of malice,” or very possibly “every trace or remainder of malice.” The key to this latter translation is that the perisseu stem is often used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew ytr root, which means either abundance or remainder.
God has implanted the word. Some have argued that this means “innate” or “inborn,” as it often does in Hellenistic literature. However, not only early Christian teaching (Barnabas 1:2; 9:9) but also the biblical tradition thinks of God’s word, or the gospel, as implanted by God in one’s heart at conversion (Deut. 30:1; Matt. 13:4–15, 18–23; 1 Cor. 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13). It is this sense that fits best here. As in the parable of the sower, the word may be planted, but unless obeyed it is soon choked, with fatal results.
The phrase in you (cf. GNB, “in your hearts”) is a correct interpretation of the normal biblical location of such implantation, but in some translations the following phrase is “save your soul.” The salvation James refers to is a deliverance from the apocalyptic judgment of God in the last day. “Souls” is correctly interpreted in the NIV as simply you, for psychē means the whole person or self (cf. Deut. 6:5; Job 33:28; Mark 8:35; John 10:11; Acts 2:41).
For the virtue of meekness, see further F. Hauck and S. Schulz, “Praus,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 645–51.
1:22 The background of this verse is the Old Testament idea of doing the law (Deut. 28:53; 29:28; cf. 1 Macc. 2:16; Sirach 19:20). The teaching of Jesus was the new law for the Christian community (Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). The saying itself can be duplicated in Jewish sources: “Not the expounding of the law is the chief thing but the doing of it” (m. Aboth 1:17) or “You ought not only to read the laws of Moses, but rather to practice what they command you” (Josephus, Antiquities 20.44). Jesus has a similar saying in Matt. 7:21–27 (Luke 6:46–49), leading Origen (Homily on Gen. 2:16) to believe this verse to be an otherwise unrecorded saying of Jesus.
The term for to deceive yourselves occurs in Col. 2:4 and other parallels where it means to lead one from the faith. Thus the hearers only deceive themselves about their salvation.
The term listener in listen to the word does not refer to a casual listener but is the regular classical Greek term for a serious auditor or pupil (e.g., Plato, Republic 536c; Aristotle, Politics 1274).
1:23–24 The mirror metaphor is used elsewhere in scripture and intertestamental literature (1 Cor. 13:12; Sirach 12:11; Wisdom 7:26), as well as other Greek literature, but these uses have no relationship to James. Copper or bronze mirrors were too common household items not to have been frequently chosen as illustrations.
Some commentators argue the terms looks … in a mirror and looking at himself mean to “glance at” as opposed to a more careful look at the law in v. 25 (e.g., J. Adamson, James, p. 82). But not only does this not fit James’ point, it also makes a false assertion about the Greek term (cf. Matt. 7:23; Luke 12:27; Luke 20:3). See further S. S. Laws, James, p. 86; and J. Goetzmann, “Reason,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, p. 126.
1:25 The term blessed (makarios) turns attention to the previous use of the word in 1:12. As in Matt. 5:3–9 (and with a background in Ps. 1:1; Isa. 56:2, etc.) the blessing is not temporal prosperity but future approval, or joy when the kingdom of God is fully established (cf. 5:7–11).
The perfect law that gives freedom has been frequently discussed. The Stoic use of the term (e.g., Epictetus 4.1.158) is discussed by J. Blunk, “Freedom,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 715–16, and H. Schlier, “Eleutheros,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 493–96. Philo attempted to apply this idea to the Mosaic Law as being true reason (e.g., Vita Moesis 2.48). On the other hand, there is no evidence of the Stoic idea in James other than this verbal similarity, and there is abundant evidence that the Jews of all types saw their law as perfect and freeing (Pss. 119; 19:7–11; 40:6–8; Rom. 7:12; m. Aboth 3:5; 6:2). W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, has shown that the Jews expected Messiah to reinterpret the law. This Jewish expectation is precisely what early Christians saw Jesus fulfilling, giving the new and perfect law for the new age (cf. Barnabas 2:6 and Hermas Vision 1.3).
1:26 Religion or religious is not commonly used in scripture, the adjective occurring in the Greek Bible only here and the noun only in v. 27; Acts 26:5; and Col. 2:18 in the New Testament. The terms refer to the religious performance either positively or negatively.
The idea of worthlessness occurs again in 2:14–26, where faith that does not produce action is declared unable to save.
1:27 The terms pure and faultless or “pure and unblemished” are also found in Didache 1:5 and Hermas Mandate 2.7; Similitude 5.7.1. They are probably an idiom for absolute purity.
The reference to God as Father is not unusual for James (1:17; 3:9), but here it may stress God as the universal Father who is the father to orphans and husband to the widow. This allusion would make the demand for charity flow out of God’s nature.
The world is referred to here in a distinctly Christian sense, as H. Sasse, “Kosmos,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 889–95, points out. The only Jewish passages that reject human culture in this same way are suspected of Christian influence (e.g., 1 Enoch 48:7; 108:8). For Christians, the world could pollute, or spot, them. Thus it was imperative to remain unspotted, which was originally a cultic term for purity and acceptability for cultic service (i.e., temple worship; cf. 1 Pet. 1:19) but now has taken on a moral tone (as in 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Pet. 3:14).
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Peter H. Davids, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
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).
Headgear signifying honor, victory, power, or authority. A crown was worn by monarchs in the ancient world to designate their royal power, often including a golden headband with precious stones in it, as well as a turban.
There are two important types of crowns in the OT: the priestly and the royal. A royal crown first appears with Saul (2Sam. 1:10) and is worn by monarchs after him, including David (2Sam. 12:30; 1Chron. 20:2; see also Pss. 21:3; 132:18) and Joash (2Kings 11:12; 2Chron. 23:11). The book of Exodus depicts a crownlike turban to which is affixed a golden “sacred emblem” bearing the inscription “Holy to the Lord,” which is to be worn by the high priest (Exod. 28:3637; 29:6; see also, e.g., 39:30; Lev. 8:9).
Zechariah 6:11–14 looks to a future messiah, “the Branch,” who will be both priest and king, thus wearing a priestly and royal crown. Before his crucifixion, Jesus’ tormentors place on his head a mock crown made of thorns (Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2, 5). In the book of Revelation both godly and satanic figures wear crowns: the elders in heaven (4:4, 10), the rider of the white horse (6:2), the locusts from the Abyss (9:7), the woman clothed with the sun (12:1), the dragon and the beast (12:3; 13:1), the one “like a son of man” (14:14), and Christ himself (19:12).
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:2829).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the Letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the Letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
“The fall” refers to the events of the first human couple’s sin in the garden of Eden (Gen. 23). Although the word “fall” does not occur in the account, Christians have used the term to describe it, taking their cues from Paul’s writings (esp. Rom. 5:12–21). The term is important because it reflects an interpretation that the events in the garden are the entrance of human sin and that the sin has universal effects on humankind.
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 earliest ripening produce of the harvest (Exod. 23:16; Neh. 10:35) or, more generally, the highest-quality portion of any produce or manufactured commodity (Num. 15:20).
The firstfruit of the harvest is a symbol and harbinger of God’s blessing. Thus, God commands that sacrifices take place in which the “best of the firstfruits” are offered to him in thanksgiving and praise (Exod. 34:26; cf. Lev. 23:17; Deut. 26:2). The same principle applies to manufactured goods (Deut. 18:4), and all these events are accompanied by feasts and festivals (Exod. 23:16). Such ceremonial worship takes on renewed importance in the return from the exile, where they are connected to God’s worldwide rule and his claim upon the firstborn (Neh. 10:3537; cf. Exod. 13:2–16).
Paul uses this OT background to metaphorically describe the resurrection, God’s final “harvest” of the earth. Jesus Christ, by virtue of his resurrection from the dead, is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1Cor. 15:20; cf. Rom. 8:29). The resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of an abundant harvest to come, in which those united to Jesus will be similarly raised into abundant life. There is therefore a two-part order to a single resurrection harvest: “Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him” (1Cor. 15:23).
Furthermore, since Jesus’ own resurrection has already taken place, believers, who are sealed with Christ through “the firstfruits of the Spirit,” enjoy now a foretaste of the abundant life to come (Rom. 8:23; cf. 2Cor. 1:22; 5:5). Believers are therefore encouraged to live as those who have been born again by faith, “that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created” (James 1:18). Similarly, Paul sometimes uses the term “firstfruits” to describe the first converts in a region (Rom. 16:5; 1Cor. 16:15 KJV), symbolizing the expectation of fruitful ministry and the intimation of worldwide salvation.
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).
The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).
In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).
Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.
The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and good will between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.
In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:2223; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).
Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).
In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).
The name “James” is a form of the name “Jacob” (Heb. Ya’aqob; Gk. Iakōbos), which was very popular in the first century. In the NT there are five individuals named “James.”
(1)James the son of Zebedee and the older brother of John. He was martyred by Herod AgrippaI in AD 40 (Mark 1:19; 3:17; Acts 12:2).
(2)James the son of Alphaeus we know very little about other than that he is consistently listed among the disciples (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).
(3)James “the younger” (Mark 15:40), whose mother, named “Mary,” appears in Mark 16:1 just as the “mother of James.” In church tradition, he is sometimes identified with James the son of Alphaeus.
(4)James the father of Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) is mentioned only to distinguish this Judas from Judas Iscariot.
(5)James the brother of Jesus was an early leader of the Jerusalem church (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:1331; 21:18; 1Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; Jude 1). A number of Jesus’ family members became prominent leaders in the early Christian movement in Palestine, James being the most prominent.
There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:111; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).
Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1Tim. 1:10–11).
Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).
The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.
In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness.... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
The sun was worshiped as a god or goddess in all the nations around Israel in OT times, and the polemic against sun worship in Deut. 4:19; 17:3; Jer. 8:2; Job 31:2628 suggests that sun worship also made inroads into Israel. By way of contrast, the OT attests to the sun’s created status (Gen. 1:16) and counts it as subject to God’s control (e.g., Josh. 10:12–13).
In the OT, the sun often is associated with and symbolic of life (e.g., Eccles. 7:11; cf. Ps. 58:8) or justice (Ps. 19:6; Job 38:13; Mal. 4:2; cf. 2Sam. 23:3–4). The darkening of the sun is presented as a sign of judgment heralding the day of the Lord (Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24; Rev. 6:12; 9:2), which many associate with the darkness that fell during the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
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).
“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:1617; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).
The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.
The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).
Direct Matches
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
Headgear signifying honor, victory, power, or authority. Acrown was worn by monarchs in the ancient world to designate theirroyal power, often including a golden headband with precious stonesin it, as well as a turban.
Thereare two important types of crowns in the OT: the priestly and theroyal. A royal crown first appears with Saul (2 Sam. 1:10) andis worn by monarchs after him, including David (2 Sam. 12:30;1 Chron. 20:2; see also Pss. 21:3; 132:18) and Joash (2 Kings11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11). Jeremiah 13:18 warns of a day when theroyal crowns of Judah will be taken away, signifying the monarchy’sfall from power. Esther wears a Persian royal crown (Esther 1:11;2:17), as does Mordecai (8:15).
Thebook of Exodus depicts a crownlike turban to which is affixed agolden “sacred emblem” bearing the inscription “Holyto the Lord,” which is to be worn by the high priest (Exod.28:36–37; 29:6; see also, e.g., 39:30; Lev. 8:9).
Zechariah6:11–14 looks to a future messiah, “the Branch,”who will be both priest and king, thus wearing a priestly and royalcrown. Before his crucifixion, Jesus’ tormentors place on hishead a mock crown made of thorns (Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2,5). In the book of Revelation both godly and satanic figures wearcrowns: the elders in heaven (4:4, 10), the rider of the white horse(6:2), the locusts from the Abyss (9:7), the woman clothed with thesun (12:1), the dragon and the beast (12:3; 13:1), the one “likea son of man” (14:14), and Christ himself (19:12).
Crownssymbolize human honor (Ps. 8:5; Prov. 4:9; Heb. 2:7, 9) and kinglypower (Ps. 89:39), as well as the loss of such glory (Job 19:9; Ezek.21:26) and its ultimate renewal in eternal life (1 Pet. 5:4).Similarly, crowns often represent eternal salvation (Ps. 149:4; James1:12; Rev. 2:10). Paul even calls his converts his “crown”(Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19). The figure of a crownlike garland,the prize for victory in Greco-Roman athletic games, signifies theChristian’s final enjoyment of eternal bliss (1 Cor. 9:25;2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8). Crowns portray divine blessings, including joy(Isa. 35:10; 51:11), love (Ps. 103:4), and beauty, the last of whichsymbolizes divine restoration after judgment (Isa. 61:3). God is evenportrayed as the crown of his people (Isa. 28:5). In addition, acrown stands for several human features, such as wealth (Prov. 14:24)and pride (Isa. 28:1, 3).
A word that appears in the KJV and also in the Douay-RheimsBible (an English translation of the Latin Vulgate), translating theGreek word epithymia, and is generally, and incorrectly, understoodas lust. More accurately, it describes an intense desire foranything, and it is not limited to sexual desire, as the contemporarydefinition of lust implies. Furthermore, there are some significantdifferences between Catholic and Protestant theological definitionsof concupiscence. Most simply put, Catholics tie their understandingof concupiscence to the concept of the inclination to sin, butconcupiscence itself is not sin. Protestants, on the other hand,generally tie concupiscence to their understanding of original sin;that is, concupiscence is original sin. Outside of theologicalconversation the word has fallen out of general public use.
Oneuse of the term in the KJV occurs in Rom. 7:8, where Paul discussesthe relationship between sin and the law. These verses in Romans arenotoriously difficult for interpreters to explain, but in 7:8 Paulsays that sin, which was defined by the commandment (Paul here meansthe Torah or Hebrew Bible), produced concupiscence (NIV: “coveting”).For Paul, sin is a force that becomes active only when the law ismade known, because without the law, Paul says, sin is dead.
TheKJV uses the term again in Col. 3:5 in another Pauline discussionabout sin. In this passage Paul encourages his readers to “setyour minds on things above” rather than on “earthlythings.” Continuing in this line of reasoning, Paul says thathis readers are to “put to death” a list of things,including concupiscence (NIV: “evil desires”).
Thelast use of the term by the KJV is in 1 Thess. 4:5, where Paulagain admonishes his readers to live a holy life and to avoidconcupiscence (NIV: “passionate lust”).
TheDouay-Rheims Bible does not use the term in 1 Thess. 4:5, but itdoes (in addition to Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5) in Rom. 7:7; James 1:14–15;2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 2:17.
A description of a doubting or hesitant person in James 1:8; 4:8. The Greek term, dipsychos, literally means “double-souled,” as if a person had a split personality. James uses this description in reference to spiritually unstable people among his readers who were “like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind” (James 1:6), and he appeals to them to “come near to God ... and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8). This turmoil pictures the kind of spiritual warfare often experienced by believers. This concept is found also in Ps. 119:113, where the psalmist says to God, “I hate double-minded people [se’apim], but I love your law.” God calls believers to a fight for faith leading to a wholehearted commitment to him. Elijah’s challenge remains: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” (1Kings 18:21).
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
In the NIV, “fashion” is a verb meaning “tocraft, shape, form.” Often it is used pejoratively, as in thecrafting of an idol out of wood, stone, or metal (Exod. 32:4; 2Kings19:18; Isa. 37:19; 40:19; 44:15; Hos. 13:2). Job speaks of thecunning and scheming of those who think they are wise but aregodless: “their womb fashions deceit” (Job 15:35). In apositive sense, items are fashioned for God’s purpose: Aaron’sbreastpiece is fashioned by “the work of skilled hands”(Exod. 28:15; cf. 39:8). God is the master craftsman who “fashionedand made the earth” (Isa. 45:18). But God’s fashioning isa synonym for creation rather than crafting; he fashions his work outof nothing.
Inthe KJV God’s fashioning extends to his creation of humanbeings (Job 10:8; 31:15; Ps. 119:73), his oversight of the humanheart (Ps. 33:15), his ordaining of a person’s life span (Ps.139:16), and his transformative work in the glorification ofbelievers (Phil. 3:21).
Themost common noun usage for the word “fashion” in the KJVOT is as a plan, blueprint, or specification (2Kings 16:10)—forexample, of the ark (Gen. 6:15), the tabernacle (Exod. 26:30), andthe temple (1Kings 6:38; Ezek. 43:11). “Fashion” isalso used as a synonym for “likeness, appearance, manner, form”(Exod. 37:19; Mark 2:12; Luke 9:29; 1Cor. 7:31; Phil. 2:8;James 1:11). Finally, Peter cautions believers against “fashioning[themselves] according to the former lusts” (1Pet. 1:14KJV), a warning not to model or conform to worldly desires.
The earliest ripening produce of the harvest (Exod. 23:16;Neh. 10:35) or, more generally, the highest-quality portion of anyproduce or manufactured commodity (Num. 15:20).
Thefirstfruit of the harvest is a symbol and harbinger of God’sblessing. Thus, God commands that sacrifices take place in which the“best of the firstfruits” are offered to him inthanksgiving and praise (Exod. 34:26; cf. Lev. 23:17; Deut. 26:2).The same principle applies to manufactured goods (Deut. 18:4), andall these events are accompanied by feasts and festivals (Exod.23:16). Such ceremonial worship takes on renewed importance in thereturn from the exile, where they are connected to God’sworldwide rule and his claim upon the firstborn (Neh. 10:35–37;cf. Exod. 13:2–16).
Pauluses this OT background to metaphorically describe the resurrection,God’s final “harvest” of the earth. Jesus Christ,by virtue of his resurrection from the dead, is “thefirstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1Cor.15:20; cf. Rom. 8:29). The resurrection of Christ is the guarantee ofan abundant harvest to come, in which those united to Jesus will besimilarly raised into abundant life. There is therefore a two-partorder to a single resurrection harvest: “Christ, thefirstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him”(1Cor. 15:23).
Furthermore,since Jesus’ own resurrection has already taken place,believers, who are sealed with Christ through “the firstfruitsof the Spirit,” enjoy now a foretaste of the abundant life tocome (Rom. 8:23; cf. 2Cor. 1:22; 5:5). Believers are thereforeencouraged to live as those who have been born again by faith, “thatwe might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created” (James1:18). Similarly, Paul sometimes uses the term “firstfruits”to describe the first converts in a region (Rom. 16:5; 1Cor.16:15 KJV), symbolizing the expectation of fruitful ministry and theintimation of worldwide salvation.
The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.
Flower Imagery
Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).
Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.
As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).
The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1Pet. 1:24–25).
The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).
Flowers Named in the Bible
The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).
The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.
Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.
The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.
Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.
Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.
Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).
co*ckle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “co*ckle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.
Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).
Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.
Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).
Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).
Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).
Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1Kings 7:18–20).
Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.
Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).
The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).
Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.
Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).
Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).
Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).
Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).
The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).
On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).
Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).
The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).
Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.
Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).
Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).
Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).
Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).
The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).
On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).
Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).
GreetingCustoms in Biblical Times
Weknow of greeting customs in biblical times from narrations ofgreetings and from instructions on greeting.
Inbiblical Hebrew, the phrase usually translated “to greet”is literally “to inquire of someone’s well-being[shalom]” (e.g., Exod. 18:7; 2Sam. 20:9 [cf. the Englishgreeting “How are you?”]). In some instances, we seepeople “blessing” one another as a form of greeting:“Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, andSaul went out to greet [lit., ‘bless’] him” (1Sam.13:10). Ruth 2:4 provides an example of the words that passed betweenindividuals in such a greeting: “Just then Boaz arrived fromBethlehem and greeted the harvesters, ‘The Lord be with you!’‘The Lord bless you!’ they answered.” The formulahad changed little by the first century AD, when Gabriel said toMary, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is withyou” (Luke 1:28). Luke reports that “Mary was greatlytroubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this mightbe” (1:29), though the source of her consternation is unclear,since the angel’s greeting closely approximates that of Boaz.Perhaps this is the very point: the angel was speaking in adistinctively “biblical-sounding” vernacular, whichraised the concerns of the young, first-century AD woman.
Pauloften instructs the recipients of his letters to greet one anotherwith a “holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16; 1Cor. 16:20; 2Cor.13:12; 1Thess. 5:26; see also 1Pet. 5:14). Tragically, akiss of greeting was the signal by which Judas Iscariot betrayedJesus (Matt. 26:48–49). Other examples of greeting with a kissinclude Gen. 29:11, 13; 33:4; 45:15; Exod. 4:27; 18:7; 2Sam.20:9; Prov. 7:13. In other cases, kisses were exchanged as a farewellgreeting (Gen. 31:28, 55; 48:10; 50:1; Ruth 1:9, 14; 1Sam.20:41; 2Sam. 19:39; 1Kings 19:20; Acts 20:37). Jesustaught his disciples to be generous with their greetings; after all,even pagans will greet their brothers and sisters, but a Christianmust extend greetings even beyond the narrow circle of kinship (Matt.5:47). When entering a home, Jesus taught, his disciples were togreet the inhabitants (Matt. 10:12). At other times, however, Jesustold his disciples to forgo greetings along the road in the interestof arriving quickly at their destination (Luke 10:4).
Greetingand Social Rank
Inthe examples of Ruth 2:4 and Luke 1:28 above, the greeting isinitiated by the person of higher status. Boaz was a wealthylandowner greeting fieldworkers, and Gabriel was an important angelgreeting a young, unmarried woman. An analogy may be drawn to anothersocial norm, the notion that it was appropriate for the greaterperson to bless the lesser: “Without doubt the lesser isblessed by the greater” (Heb. 7:7). Elsewhere in the Bible, theopposite practice is referred to, when Jesus criticizes the teachersof the law and the Pharisees because, among other honors, “theylove to be greeted with respect in the marketplace and to be called‘Rabbi’ by others” (Matt. 23:7). When Paul went toRome, believers from that city traveled about forty miles to meet andgreet him as he approached the city (Acts 28:15), thus according tohim the honors due a traveling dignitary in antiquity (cf. Mark 9:15;1Thess. 4:17).
EpistolaryGreetings
Likemodern letters, ancient correspondence began with a salutation (Acts15:23; 23:26; James 1:1) (see Salutation). In particular, Paul usedthe greeting at the beginning of his epistles as an occasion fortheological elaboration in addition to its use as the identificationof the writer and the recipients of the letter. To the end of hisletters, Paul often appended individually directed greetings, as wellas greetings in the name of friends with whom he sent the letter(Rom. 16:3–16; 1Cor. 16:19–21; 2Cor.13:12–13; Phil. 4:22–23; Col. 4:10–15; 2Tim.4:19–21; Titus 3:15; Philem. 1:23; see also Heb. 13:24; 1Pet.5:13; 2John 13; 3John 14).
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned several times in theGospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. In Mark 6:3 (see also Matt.13:55–56) four brothers are named, and sisters are mentioned,though the name or number of sisters is not given. The people ofNazareth are offended by Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue andexpress surprise that Jesus, given the dramatic claims that he hasmade about himself in his sermon there (see Luke 4:16–30), isthe son and brother of local villagers (Mary and her sons James,Joses [named “Joseph” in Matthew], Judas, and Simon). Inthe crucifixion scene in Mark, one of the women present is identifiedas “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph [NIVmg.: “Greek Joses”]” (Mark 15:40). It is unlikely,however, that this is Jesus’ mother and brothers, since itwould be strange to identify Mary as the mother of these twolesser-known siblings rather than of Jesus himself.
InMark 3:32–35 Jesus redefines what it means to be his brother,sister, or mother in the kingdom of God in response to being notifiedthat his earthly mother and brothers, who at this point in time didnot understand his mission (see 3:21), are waiting for him outsidethe house in Capernaum. Although Mary and Jesus’ brothersappear to have traveled around Galilee with him (see John 2:12),John’s Gospel makes explicit the brothers’ unbelief(7:2–10), which is only implicit in Matthew and Mark. Acts 1:14shows the dramatic reversal that has taken place in the response toJesus by his brothers after the resurrection. Mary and Jesus’brothers are gathered together with the entire body of Jesus’disciples in prayer, fellowship, and teaching.
James(apparently Jesus’ oldest sibling) became a key leader in theJerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 21:18) and pronounced the decision atthe Jerusalem council (Acts 15:13). He is also traditionallyidentified as the author of the NT letter that bears his name (James1:1). Another NT letter may also have been penned by a brother ofJesus, since Jude identifies himself as “a brother of James”(Jude 1), a probable reference to this same James.
In1 Cor. 9:5 Paul argues (through a rhetorical question) thatChristian missionaries have the right to take “a believingwife” along with them in their work, just as the other apostlesand Jesus’ brothers had done. Finally, while recounting hisfirst trip to Jerusalem after his conversion, Paul mentions a meetingwith James, “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19).
Accordingto the Jewish historian Josephus, Jesus’ brother James died amartyr’s death at the hands of the Jewish high priest Ananus(Ant. 20.197–200).
Liberality is the characteristic of being generous, thewillingness to give of one’s possessions to help others. Itrelates both to the amount of the gift and the attitude of the giver:the gift consists of a proportionally great amount (2Chron.31:5; 2Cor. 8:2), and the giver offers the gift freely andcheerfully (Deut. 15:10; 2Cor. 9:7). Liberality is acharacteristic of God (James 1:5) and the righteous (Ps. 37:21, 26;2Cor. 9:13).
Scientifically, light may be described as electromagneticradiation, exhibiting qualities of both waves and particles,traveling 186,282 miles per second from a light source, such as thesun or a lightbulb. In contrast, ancient Mediterranean thoughtpresupposes that light, a kind of fire and fundamental constituent ofmatter, emanates from the human eye like a beam; and for some, theintensity of its radiance and luminosity depends upon the moralityand direction of the seer’s heart. Even today, many Europeansare fearful of the “evil eye,” when a person is able tocurse other human beings by merely looking at them. Jesus refers tothe evil eye as emanating from an evil heart (Mark 7:22 [NIV:“envy”]; see also Gal. 3:1). Contemporary experiences ofthis seemingly counterintuitive reversal of empirical reality are thecommon perception of being watched from behind (turning and seeingthat, in fact, this was the case), the luminous screen of theimagination, dreams after closing one’s eyes, and expressionssuch as Shakespeare’s “death-darting eye.”
Jesusappropriates this popular assumption for the sake of his point: “Theeye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your wholebody will be full of light” (Matt. 6:22). Another way oftranslating the verse is “If the eye is focused, your wholebody will be enlightened.” In the larger context, Jesus isexhorting disciples to turn their eyes from Mammon (wealth as anidol) to God’s throne, where their real treasure is (Matt.6:19–24). He claims that only those with pure hearts will seeGod (Matt. 5:8). Paul speaks of the “eyes of your heart”(Eph. 1:18), which are opened by the Holy Spirit—a phenomenonthat he experienced on the way to Damascus, which, ironically, led tothe temporary blindness of his eyes to see Christ, who was at theright hand of the Father in heaven (Acts 9:1–19; cf. 2Cor.3:7–18). The Bible does not require that light be limited toeither the scientifically objective or the experientially subjectiveperspective; it appropriates the phenomenon to elucidate a deeperreality to creation and God, the possibility of seeing the lightbeyond light.
Godbegins his creation with light, which precedes the creation of sun,moon, and stars and throughout Scripture is an unqualified good (Gen.1:3–5, 15–18; Exod. 10:23; 13:21). The comfort of lightis more difficult to appreciate in a world that runs on electricity.In the ancient world, people rarely traveled at night and usuallywent to bed soon after sunset. The only light in the home was a smalloil lamp set on a stand, which burned expensive olive oil. Light is abiblical synonym for life (Job 3:20; John 8:12). Seeing the lightmeans living (Ps. 49:19; see also Job 33:30). Conversely, darkness isoften a symbol of adversity, disaster, and death (Job 30:26; Isa.8:22; Jer. 23:12; Lam. 3:2). Death is likened to the extinguishing ofa flame (Prov. 13:9; Sir. 22:11). God initially overcame the chaoticdarkness when he created light, and ultimately God’s own glorywill replace light in the new heavens and earth (Rev. 21:23–25).It is therefore not surprising that God is often associated withlight (James 1:13–18).
John,who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claimsthat God is light (1John 1:5). The predicate appropriates theintrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s heartsback to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truthand signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of theworld (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’sholiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the placeof fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7). See also Lightof the World.
In modern cultures, lust typically is associated withindulging in illegitimate sexual fantasizing. In Scripture, however,the word “lust” is sometimes used to translate Greek andHebrew words that have a wider range of meanings. “Lust”can refer to an inordinate (i.e., idolatrous) passion that rulesone’s heart, whether or not one acts upon it. After Moses ledthe children of Israel in the desert for some time, they became tiredof the manna that God was providing and began to “crave”the delicacies that they had enjoyed in Egypt. Their inordinatedesire for meat caused them to become disgruntled and complain toMoses (Num. 11:4–9). The desire became idolatrous when itmorphed from a legitimate desire into a demand.
TheBible distinguishes between temptation, which appeals to one’sdesire (1Cor. 10:13), and lust, which takes captive one’saffections and imagination, enslaving a person. “Each person istempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire andenticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; andsin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James1:14–15). There are good desires that turn into sinful ones,but there are also desires that are inherently sinful. Jesusidentified an inward yearning to have another person’s spouseas adultery, because affections and imagination have been hijacked bydesire for emotional and sexual fulfillment outside the legitimatecontext of marriage (Matt. 5:28). By the Spirit, we are to mortifyinordinate desires (Gal. 5:16–18).
The word “perfect” is used to translate Hebrewand Greek terms for ritual and moral wholeness. In the biblical textthe terms “whole,” “complete,” and “mature”are related to “perfect.” Often, “perfect”conveys the sense of something reaching its end and therefore its“completion” or “perfection.”
TheOT describes an animal or crop intended for sacrificial offering as“unblemished,” “whole,” or “perfect”(Heb. tamim). Though not translated “perfect” in the NIV,the term tamim frequently appears in cultic contexts of Israel’sworship (e.g., Exod. 12:5; Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3). Neitherimperfect animals nor priests with physical defects were consideredfit for service in the temple because of their lack of wholeness(Lev. 21:16–23; 22:17–25). Wholeness itself reflectedGod’s holiness through physical wholeness (see Lev. 10:3).
Figuratively,the term tamim (or tam) refers to wholeness of heart and is appliedto human action or conduct, where it describes walking blamelesslybefore God (Noah [Gen. 6:9]; Abraham [Gen. 17:1; cf. Deut. 18:13];Job [Job 1:1]). God’s way is described as “perfect”(2Sam. 22:31), as is his knowledge (Job 37:16), and Ps. 19:7recounts how the “law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing thesoul.” Thus, God’s perfection or holiness must bereflected in God’s people: “Speak to the entire assemblyof Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’” (Lev. 19:2).
Inthe NT, “perfect” can refer to something of the higheststandard (James 1:17, 25) or to a fully “mature” adult(Eph. 4:13). “To make perfect” often appears with culticovertones. In Hebrews, Christ, our high priest, is “perfected”through suffering (2:10) and made eternally “perfect”(7:28). God’s love reaches “perfection” whenbelievers obey God’s word: “If anyone obeys his word,love for God is truly made complete in them” (1John 2:5).When “perfect” appears in the NT letters as applied tohumans, the idea is not of ethical perfection by degrees, but ratherit conveys a sense of undivided wholeness of heart before God. Thenotion of “perfection” in contemporary English conveysthe idea of “sinlessness,” but the biblical idea refersmore to something that is “whole” or “complete.”For something to be “perfect” means that it fulfills itsintended design: a house is “perfect” if it has fourwalls and a roof and can provide shelter.
The word “perfect” is used to translate Hebrewand Greek terms for ritual and moral wholeness. In the biblical textthe terms “whole,” “complete,” and “mature”are related to “perfect.” Often, “perfect”conveys the sense of something reaching its end and therefore its“completion” or “perfection.”
TheOT describes an animal or crop intended for sacrificial offering as“unblemished,” “whole,” or “perfect”(Heb. tamim). Though not translated “perfect” in the NIV,the term tamim frequently appears in cultic contexts of Israel’sworship (e.g., Exod. 12:5; Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3). Neitherimperfect animals nor priests with physical defects were consideredfit for service in the temple because of their lack of wholeness(Lev. 21:16–23; 22:17–25). Wholeness itself reflectedGod’s holiness through physical wholeness (see Lev. 10:3).
Figuratively,the term tamim (or tam) refers to wholeness of heart and is appliedto human action or conduct, where it describes walking blamelesslybefore God (Noah [Gen. 6:9]; Abraham [Gen. 17:1; cf. Deut. 18:13];Job [Job 1:1]). God’s way is described as “perfect”(2Sam. 22:31), as is his knowledge (Job 37:16), and Ps. 19:7recounts how the “law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing thesoul.” Thus, God’s perfection or holiness must bereflected in God’s people: “Speak to the entire assemblyof Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’” (Lev. 19:2).
Inthe NT, “perfect” can refer to something of the higheststandard (James 1:17, 25) or to a fully “mature” adult(Eph. 4:13). “To make perfect” often appears with culticovertones. In Hebrews, Christ, our high priest, is “perfected”through suffering (2:10) and made eternally “perfect”(7:28). God’s love reaches “perfection” whenbelievers obey God’s word: “If anyone obeys his word,love for God is truly made complete in them” (1John 2:5).When “perfect” appears in the NT letters as applied tohumans, the idea is not of ethical perfection by degrees, but ratherit conveys a sense of undivided wholeness of heart before God. Thenotion of “perfection” in contemporary English conveysthe idea of “sinlessness,” but the biblical idea refersmore to something that is “whole” or “complete.”For something to be “perfect” means that it fulfills itsintended design: a house is “perfect” if it has fourwalls and a roof and can provide shelter.
A shadow may refer to shade generally, darkness, or to aspecific shadow cast by something; “shadow” and “shade”also have other uses by extension. Perhaps because shade is aprotection from the heat of the sun, shade and shadow are metaphorsfor protection (Pss. 91:1; 121:5; Isa. 49:2), as in the phrase“shadow of [God’s] wings” (Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1;63:7). Since shadows change through the day and pass away, shadowbecomes a metaphor for brevity, particularly the brevity of life(1Chron. 29:15; Job 8:9; 14:2; Pss. 102:11; 109:23; 144:4), andfor change (James 1:17 [though this text has other interpretations]).As darkness, shadow sometimes refers to a place to hide (Job 34:22)or to gloom or danger (Pss. 44:19; 107:10, 14; Isa. 9:2; Jer. 2:6).The “land of darkness and deep shadow” appears to be areference to death (Job 10:21 ESV, NASB). And since a shadow’sshape resembles the outline of what casts the shadow, shadow mayrefer to that similarity as a copy, however imperfect (Col. 2:17;Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
Twomiracles involved shadows. God gave Hezekiah a miraculous sign bymoving the shadow on the steps backward (2Kings 20:9–11).As people believed the apostles’ message, they brought the sickto Solomon’s Colonnade, where they were healed when Peter’sshadow fell on them (Acts 5:12–16).
TheHebrew word for “deep darkness,” tsalmawet,was seen as two words by LXX translators and rendered as “shadowof death” (skia thanatou). This wording came into the NT as aquotation or allusion (Matt. 4:16; Luke 1:79). Texts discovered fromaround the time of the judges in Ugaritic, a language closely relatedto Hebrew, have shown that tsalmawet is one word, meaning “deepdarkness” or “gloom.” Modern translations havetended to change the rendering of this word, but some may leave“shadow of death” in Ps. 23:4 because of the popularityof this traditional wording.
Sisters play a major role in many OT narratives. Sarah wasAbraham’s half sister (Gen. 20:12; marriage or intercourse withone’s half sister was later prohibited [Lev. 18:11; 20:17]).More than once he sought to protect himself in a cowardly way bypresenting her as his sister, not mentioning that she was also hiswife (Gen. 12:10–12; 20). Isaac repeated the sin of his father(Gen. 26). Jacob loved Rachel but was deceived by her father Labaninto marrying her older sister Leah, initiating one of the mostvicious sibling rivalries in the Bible. Miriam, the sister of Moses,was a prophet and an important leader in her own right (Exod. 15:20;but see Num. 12:1, when she challenged Moses’ authority). Amnonbegan a bitter feud with his half brother Absalom when Amnon rapedAbsalom’s sister Tamar (2Sam. 13). Jeremiah and Ezekielboth depict the northern and southern kingdoms as unfaithful sisters(Jer. 3:6–10; Ezek. 23; cf. Ezek. 16).
Certainbiblical stories indicate that sisters were protected by brothersrather than fathers. It is Laban who negotiates the terms of hissister Rebekah’s marriage to Isaac (Gen. 24). Dinah is avengedand defended by her brothers; Jacob does nothing (Gen. 34). Tamarcomes under Absalom’s protection, not David’s (2Sam.13). In Song of Songs, it is the brothers, not the parents, whosupervise the girl (1:6) and who discuss her protection until shecomes of age (8:8–9), though she declares she is able to takecare of herself (8:10).
Inthe NT, the most famous sisters are Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42),who mourn the death of their beloved brother, Lazarus (John 11).Throughout the NT, the members of the church are often referred to as“brothers and sisters” (e.g., Matt. 18:15; Acts 6:3;1Cor. 12:1; Phil. 4:8; James 1:2; 1John 3:13; many modernBible versions [such as GW, NIV, NLT, NRSV] translate the Greek termadelphoias including both men and women), carrying on Jesus’redefinition of the family: “whoever does the will of my Fatherin heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matt. 12:50).See also Brotherly Love; Brothers and Sisters, Jesus’.
In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,”“test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”)seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmosand verb peirazōtranslate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context aloneto determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture,temptation relates directly to test and trial.
Negatively,English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt”as the fittingtranslation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil,or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin anddevastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1Cor.7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies thispurposeas the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1Thess. 3:5).
Positively,the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests hispeople to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1;Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, itresults in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God testshis own people, it may looklike judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). TheNT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō(“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain theother (2Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).
Neutrally,“trial” (or “tribulation”) translates themeaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19;2Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1Pet. 1:6) that may or may notlead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of theLord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13// Luke 11:4) presupposes theunderstanding that God is sovereign over all human circ*mstances andtherefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead totemptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows thesame supposition (Mark 14:38).
Thisinterconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation,test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts.There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test;God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith,while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin.A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel textsin 2Samuel and 1Chronicles that describe David as bothtested by God (2Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1Chron.21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.
Whenhumans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod.17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’sfirm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as aviolation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9;15:10).
In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,”“test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”)seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmosand verb peirazōtranslate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context aloneto determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture,temptation relates directly to test and trial.
Negatively,English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt”as the fittingtranslation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil,or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin anddevastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1Cor.7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies thispurposeas the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1Thess. 3:5).
Positively,the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests hispeople to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1;Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, itresults in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God testshis own people, it may looklike judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). TheNT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō(“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain theother (2Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).
Neutrally,“trial” (or “tribulation”) translates themeaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19;2Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1Pet. 1:6) that may or may notlead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of theLord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13// Luke 11:4) presupposes theunderstanding that God is sovereign over all human circ*mstances andtherefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead totemptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows thesame supposition (Mark 14:38).
Thisinterconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation,test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts.There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test;God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith,while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin.A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel textsin 2Samuel and 1Chronicles that describe David as bothtested by God (2Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1Chron.21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.
Whenhumans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod.17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’sfirm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as aviolation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9;15:10).
In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,”“test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”)seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmosand verb peirazōtranslate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context aloneto determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture,temptation relates directly to test and trial.
Negatively,English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt”as the fittingtranslation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil,or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin anddevastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1Cor.7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies thispurposeas the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1Thess. 3:5).
Positively,the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests hispeople to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1;Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, itresults in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God testshis own people, it may looklike judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). TheNT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō(“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain theother (2Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).
Neutrally,“trial” (or “tribulation”) translates themeaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19;2Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1Pet. 1:6) that may or may notlead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of theLord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13// Luke 11:4) presupposes theunderstanding that God is sovereign over all human circ*mstances andtherefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead totemptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows thesame supposition (Mark 14:38).
Thisinterconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation,test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts.There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test;God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith,while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin.A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel textsin 2Samuel and 1Chronicles that describe David as bothtested by God (2Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1Chron.21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.
Whenhumans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod.17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’sfirm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as aviolation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9;15:10).
In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,”“test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”)seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmosand verb peirazōtranslate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context aloneto determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture,temptation relates directly to test and trial.
Negatively,English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt”as the fittingtranslation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil,or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin anddevastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1Cor.7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies thispurposeas the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1Thess. 3:5).
Positively,the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests hispeople to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1;Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, itresults in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God testshis own people, it may looklike judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). TheNT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō(“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain theother (2Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).
Neutrally,“trial” (or “tribulation”) translates themeaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19;2Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1Pet. 1:6) that may or may notlead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of theLord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13// Luke 11:4) presupposes theunderstanding that God is sovereign over all human circ*mstances andtherefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead totemptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows thesame supposition (Mark 14:38).
Thisinterconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation,test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts.There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test;God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith,while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin.A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel textsin 2Samuel and 1Chronicles that describe David as bothtested by God (2Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1Chron.21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.
Whenhumans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod.17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’sfirm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as aviolation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9;15:10).
Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is underGod’s command. The Hebrew word ruakhsometimes is translated as “wind” but other times canmean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen.1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma,hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is mostoften used in the NT to denote wind.
OldTestament. Throughoutthe OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind instorehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God useswind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends awind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark torecede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea duringthe exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail infrom the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness(Num. 11:31).
Windcan also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plagueupon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land;afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea(Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from thedesert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse,killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In thebook of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’sship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint anddesire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject ofwind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6;Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).
Whilea single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6),many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of theheavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the southwind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing agarden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west windspecifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the eastwind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with militaryterms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatterships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) orshrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuingthe east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, thefour winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bringlife (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan.7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).
Godrides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2Sam.22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 thewinds are called God’s “messengers.” This imageryis strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite godBaal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind(Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent uponwind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh inthe whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successfulcontest against the prophets of Baal (1Kings 19:11–12).
Thewisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besidesits power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind isthe inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov.11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under thesun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Emptytalk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blowaway chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps.1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as ametaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).
NewTestament.In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus byemphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27).Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from thefour winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit.Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John theBaptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt.11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind.It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally,a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a soundlike a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills allthose in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
James 1:1-18
is mentioned in the definition.
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in aworldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimatedispenser of each. Blessings and curses are not the outcomes ofmagicians who attempt to manipulate the gods for personal gain orretribution. Rather, God is the giver of blessing and ultimately thefinal judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source ofevery good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strengthto prosper (Deut. 8:17).
Someview the nature of blessing and curse as simply a gift from God,while others see it as an act in which one party transmits power forlife to another party. Perhaps the common thread between views is theidea of relationship.
Terminology.In the OT, the key Hebrew terms for blessing are the verb barak andthe noun berakah. When the context of their use identifies a personor a living creature as the object of blessing, the basic idea is toprovide someone with special power that will ultimately enhance hisor her life. The blessing theme is also illuminated by means of wordssuch as “grace,” “favor,” “loyalty,”and “happiness.”
Inthe NT, the Greek term eulogeō and its cognates are bestunderstood in terms of the impartation of favor, power, and benefits.The makarios word group describes a state or status of beingfortunate, happy, or privileged.
TheOT curse vocabulary includes the ideas of disgracing, makingcontemptible, and imprecation. The NT curse terminology comprises theideas of curse, slander, or consecrated to destruction.
OldTestament.Thesovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation.The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), toJacob through Isaac (Gen. 26–27), and to the people through thepriests (Num. 6:24–26).
Thetheme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 andLev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of thesebooks. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is notsymmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, theblessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for thepurpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy alsoincludes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse,on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associatedwith the relationship.
Thecreation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology ofblessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessingin Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and humanbeings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, theblessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8),Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation ofIsrael and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, theblessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipientsin material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).
Theblessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhanceand prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creationis the object of blessing (Gen. 2:7; Exod. 20:11), perhaps giving ita sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life suchas baskets and kneading troughs (Deut. 28:5), barns (Deut. 28:8), andwork (Job 1:10; Ps. 90:17) are blessed.
Godpromises to bless those who fear him (Ps. 128:1). Blessing isdesigned for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’scharacter, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embracesGod’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’swarnings. The blessings itemized in Ps. 128 are comparable to thosedetailed in Deut. 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (cf.Ps. 128:2 with Deut. 28:12; Ps. 128:3 with Deut. 28:4, 11). TheDeuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned whenGod-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’sapparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job; cf. Jesus).
NewTestament.Inthe NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both foodand joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt.6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and itfocuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift thatoriginates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritualindividuals.
Regardingcurse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to freeus from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will becompletely removed and the blessing associated with creation willprevail.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
A word that appears in the KJV and also in the Douay-RheimsBible (an English translation of the Latin Vulgate), translating theGreek word epithymia, and is generally, and incorrectly, understoodas lust. More accurately, it describes an intense desire foranything, and it is not limited to sexual desire, as the contemporarydefinition of lust implies. Furthermore, there are some significantdifferences between Catholic and Protestant theological definitionsof concupiscence. Most simply put, Catholics tie their understandingof concupiscence to the concept of the inclination to sin, butconcupiscence itself is not sin. Protestants, on the other hand,generally tie concupiscence to their understanding of original sin;that is, concupiscence is original sin. Outside of theologicalconversation the word has fallen out of general public use.
Oneuse of the term in the KJV occurs in Rom. 7:8, where Paul discussesthe relationship between sin and the law. These verses in Romans arenotoriously difficult for interpreters to explain, but in 7:8 Paulsays that sin, which was defined by the commandment (Paul here meansthe Torah or Hebrew Bible), produced concupiscence (NIV: “coveting”).For Paul, sin is a force that becomes active only when the law ismade known, because without the law, Paul says, sin is dead.
TheKJV uses the term again in Col. 3:5 in another Pauline discussionabout sin. In this passage Paul encourages his readers to “setyour minds on things above” rather than on “earthlythings.” Continuing in this line of reasoning, Paul says thathis readers are to “put to death” a list of things,including concupiscence (NIV: “evil desires”).
Thelast use of the term by the KJV is in 1 Thess. 4:5, where Paulagain admonishes his readers to live a holy life and to avoidconcupiscence (NIV: “passionate lust”).
TheDouay-Rheims Bible does not use the term in 1 Thess. 4:5, but itdoes (in addition to Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5) in Rom. 7:7; James 1:14–15;2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 2:17.
The Diaspora (or the Dispersion) generally refers to Jewsliving outside the land of Israel. Especially by the first centuryAD, Jews lived throughout the Mediterranean world and Mesopotamia.Large populations of Jews lived in Egypt and in Babylon/Persia. TwoJewish communities in Egypt established temples: at Elephantinesometime from the fifth through the fourth centuries BC, and atLeontopolis in the second century BC.
Accordingto 2 Kings 17:1–41, the first major relocation of Israelitesoccurred forcibly around 722 BC, when Samaria fell to SargonII,king of Assyria. As punishment for breaking their subject obligationsto Assyria, Sargon deported many Israelites elsewhere in the AssyrianEmpire, a usual Assyrian practice. The Bible also records thedeportations of Judeans by Babylon around the end of the seventh andbeginning of the sixth century BC (2Kings 24–25; Jer. 21;25; 27; 29; 39; 52). It explains these forced dispersions, or exiles,as punishments for breaking covenant obligations to Yahweh (Lev.26:31–39; Deut. 28:64–67). The Bible also notes some Jewsrelocating voluntarily (Jer. 40–43). Voluntary relocationslikely constitute the primary source for Jews in the Diaspora.
Accordingto Acts, Christianity’s spread was inseparably tied to theDiaspora. The initial large “conversion” that Actsrecords, at Pentecost, involves Jews from the Diaspora who havetraveled to Jerusalem for the festival (Acts 2:5–13).Throughout the rest of Acts, the apostles and missionaries findrefuge and audiences among many Diaspora Jewish communities. Evenafter Paul declares that he will turn to the Gentiles because theJews have rejected the message (Acts 13:44–52), Diasporacommunities continue to provide travel destinations and audiences forhim (e.g., Acts 17:1–4, 10–12, 17; 18:1–11, 19;28:17–30). Some NT authors label their recipients as those inthe Diaspora (or Dispersion), perhaps a Christianizing deployment ofthe term (James 1:1; 1Pet. 1:1–2).
Retribution refers to “giving what is due,”usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theologicaldoctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term inEnglish translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×).Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral orderis built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov.26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight,meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not onlyon the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2Cor.9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1)life isnot overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2)human actions affect thefuture, (3)the world is morally uniform, and (4)humanrevenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom.12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands areintended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address ofretribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut.28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential(Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).
Thispoetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam andEve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge(Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9)(cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign Godacting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of hisintentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise ofYahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenantfellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensionsexist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—thisdoes not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4).In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justiceand reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev.22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understandsthe limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).
Whilethe notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept ofcorrespondence is helpful for understanding the concept ofretribution. God’s judgments reveal (1)a correspondencebetween act and effect, (2)accountability to known law, (3)adebt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4)punishment thatreenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divinewarrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve itfrom all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19;Deut. 7:10; 1Sam. 24:19; 2Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149;Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2Thess.1:5–10).
God’sreasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, whilehis purposes are essentially restorative and developmental.Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifiesthe world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance anddeliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retributiongives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged andunacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps.58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity,promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner ofthe ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.
Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is underGod’s command. The Hebrew word ruakhsometimes is translated as “wind” but other times canmean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen.1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma,hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is mostoften used in the NT to denote wind.
OldTestament. Throughoutthe OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind instorehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God useswind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends awind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark torecede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea duringthe exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail infrom the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness(Num. 11:31).
Windcan also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plagueupon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land;afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea(Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from thedesert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse,killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In thebook of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’sship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint anddesire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject ofwind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6;Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).
Whilea single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6),many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of theheavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the southwind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing agarden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west windspecifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the eastwind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with militaryterms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatterships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) orshrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuingthe east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, thefour winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bringlife (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan.7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).
Godrides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2Sam.22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 thewinds are called God’s “messengers.” This imageryis strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite godBaal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind(Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent uponwind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh inthe whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successfulcontest against the prophets of Baal (1Kings 19:11–12).
Thewisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besidesits power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind isthe inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov.11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under thesun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Emptytalk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blowaway chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps.1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as ametaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).
NewTestament.In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus byemphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27).Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from thefour winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit.Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John theBaptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt.11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind.It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally,a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a soundlike a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills allthose in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).
A missive or epistle (2Chron. 35:4; Ezra 4:7). Usually, ancient Near Eastern letters were written on perishable materials, as opposed to, for example, inscriptions in stone. Since there are few places where such material could survive (deserts or anaerobic bogs), one would expect few surviving letters; yet they number in the tens of thousands. The ancients were letter writers. Significantly, reading old letters has remained a significant aspect of the Christian faith. Today, many Christians regularly read someone else’s mail—the letters of the NT—and face the expected interpretation challenges.
Form
Old Testament letters. Although more than a dozen letters are embedded in the OT (e.g., 2Sam. 11:15; 1Kings 21:9–10; 2Chron. 21:12–15), no OT book is in letter form. Embedded OT letters are truncated or summaries and tell us little of the typical ancient format. From the Lachish letters we infer that Hebrew letters generally opened with “To Addressee, greetings (or blessing),” a technical word of transition (“and now”), and no formal closing. By the Second Temple period, Aramaic letters were evolving into the structure seen in Greco-Roman style.
New Testament letters. Unlike the OT, the NT has twenty-one books in letter form: the thirteen traditional letters of Paul, the anonymous letter of Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Two letters are embedded in Acts (15:23–29; 23:26–30). It is unlikely that the “letters” in Rev. 2–3 were ever dispatched letters. The NT also mentions other letters (Acts 18:27; 1Cor. 5:9; 7:1; 16:3; 2Cor. 2:3–4; Col. 4:16; 2Thess. 2:2; 3:17).
Extant NT letters share the basic format of Greco-Roman letters, beginning with “Sender to Recipient, greetings [chairein].” A prayer (much less commonly a thanksgiving) transitioned into the letter body. The body of the letter opened with various phrases in a set format (stereotyped formula), such as disclosure: “I want you to know, brother(s), that...” (P.Oxy. 1493; Gal. 1:11); astonishment: “I am astonished how...” (P.Mich. 8.479; Gal. 1:6); petition, joy, and so forth.
The letter closed with final admonitions, greetings, good wishes, and sometimes a date. In addition to a set structure, the content was often far more stereotypical than letters today. Even letters to a family member had generic greetings, set phraseology, and standardized wishes for good health.
Yet, looking beyond the basic letter outline and the use of everyday language and formulas, it becomes clear that NT letters were not part and parcel with typical papyrus letters. Rather than the typical honor markers of rank or city, NT letter writers identified themselves by association with Jesus, sometimes describing themselves as slaves in his household (Rom. 1:1; James 1:1). The typical letter greeting (chairein) was Christianized into “grace” (charis), with the addition of “peace” (eirēnē)—the equivalent of Jewish shalom. A closing benediction was used instead of the typical final health wish/farewell. More significantly, most NT letters were far longer and more complex. The typical private letter of the poor averaged 87 words in length. Literary letters were much longer. Cicero averaged 295 words. Seneca led, with an average 995 per letter. Paul’s letter to Rome has 7,114 words. Paul averaged (including all 13 letters) 2,495 words. Not surprisingly, Paul’s opponents ridiculed his letters as “weighty” (2Cor. 10:10).
Letters of the NT also assume that the audience is familiar with Jewish Christian tradition (e.g., Jude), inserting hymnic fragments, traditions, OT quotations/allusions, and so on, often without explanation or indication. The letters were to be read in front of the congregation (1Thess. 5:27). Paul included longer and more complex thanksgivings than any known ancient writer, often using the opening thanksgiving to preview the letter’s main topics (e.g., 1Cor. 1:4–7). Paul’s letters also contain large amounts of paraenesis (moral exhortation).
Although the typical papyrus letter was brief, thus keeping its cost reasonable, it was still not a trivial expense. For example, a soldier wrote a typical letter home to indicate that he had reached his assignment safely (P.Mich. 8.490), with a likely cost of about a half denarius, or in modern United States currency, about fifty dollars. Yet the length of many NT letters made them far more expensive. Writing to the Romans today would have cost Paul over two thousand U.S. dollars. A letter for public reading (Col. 4:16) needed quality papyrus in good handwriting, not some draft in hurried scrawl (Cicero, Att. 13.14–25). Appearances mattered. (For speakers, appearance was an important part of the rhetoric.)
The official Roman postal service was not for private use. The common person entrusted letters to someone already going to or near the desired destination. This method was popular, free, and surprisingly reliable, though haphazard (P.Mich. 8.499). Otherwise, sending a letter required dispatching a private carrier, often a slave, or a hired carrier (tabellarius). These carriers had advantages. They could guarantee the letter’s authenticity, since forgeries existed (2Thess. 2:2). If able, they carried other items, often mentioned in the letter (P.Mich. 8.465–467) or the reply (Phil. 4:18). Carriers often provided additional (or confidential) details (so Col. 4:7; Cicero, Fam. 11.20.4; 11.26.5). The writer often commended the carrier as “trustworthy” to guarantee the carrier’s veracity. In Eph. 6:20–22, Paul wants it clear that he intended Tychicus to talk about Paul’s imprisonment (as proof that Paul was not ashamed of his chains), and not that Tychicus was merely revealing secrets, as sometimes was done (1Cor. 1:11). Finally, Paul may have selected a specific carrier to facilitate that letter’s reception (Romans, Colossians). (See also Paul.)
Function
On the simplest level, letters had two primary functions. Expressions such as “I pray for your health and success” (P.Mich. 8.477) and “Write me how you are and what you want” (P.Mich. 8.498) were to start or keep a relationship with the recipient. Letters were also to inform (Cic-ero, Fam. 2.4.1), as when a son wrote his father, “While I was lying ill on the ship, they were stolen from me” (P.Mich. 8.468). Yet around the NT period, aristocratic writers (beginning with Cicero, then Seneca to Pliny) were modifying the simple private letter, lengthening it and elevating its style. They were using private letters to propagate religious, political, and philosophical ideas.
Scholarly study affected the study of NT letters for nearly one hundred years by arguing for a sharp distinction between “letters” (the letters of the lower classes, seen largely in the recently discovered papyri) and “epistles” (the literary letters of the aristocratic elite). Thus, Adolf Deissmann argued that the forms of NT letters (koine vocabulary, the diatribe, etc.) were indicators of the letter’s intended function: as private letters, they were artless, unschooled, and dashed off in the midst of a flurry of other activities. On the other hand, Cicero intended his “epistles” to Atticus to be read by the broader aristocratic community and thus wrote with that in mind, creating artfully composed treatises in letter form. Although they had the appearance of private letters, Cicero carefully crafted his “epistles,” knowing that others were reading over Atticus’s shoulder. NT letters were not “epistles”; they were spontaneous and should not be read as careful compositions. Yet biblical letters were not merely private documents. Even those addressed to individuals (1–2 Timothy, Titus) seem to speak to the church behind the recipient (3John attempts to work around Diotrephes and address the church behind Gaius). Our categories of “public” versus “private” fit the ancient world poorly. Since the general function of letters was changing, NT letters should be seen as part of this shifting landscape.
Moreover, as Greco-Roman letters continued to be studied, NT letters seemed more than mere artless notes, scribbled in a spare moment. Indeed, seeing signs of careful rhetorical composition, scholars have noted similarities with categories outlined in Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks for speeches: forensic ( judicial), epideictic (demonstrative), and deliberative. Arguing that letters were, in a sense, written speeches, various scholars have attempted to identify elements in NT letters that match the required outline for a specific rhetorical argument, meaning that a letter’s rhetorical form could indicate its function. Thus, identifying the rhetorical form would reveal the author’s motive for writing, whether the writer was intending to make a legal defense of personal status or to shape the behavior of the readers. While these studies generate lively debate and some interesting results, the usefulness of applying them to letters is still unclear. Rhetorical analyses of passages in the letters have proved to be more helpful than those categorizing an entire letter. Obviously, biblical letter writers were not writing in a vacuum, but biblical letters seem to mix purposes and not fit neatly into rhetorical categories.
Biblical letters were not dashed off with anything remotely resembling the rapid-fire pace at which email and text messages are sent today. Even phrases that seem to imply casual correspondence (1Cor. 1:16) are more likely signs of careful rhetorical arguments. It is unlikely that biblical letters represent the work of just a long day or a few evenings. These letters show signs of careful composition (noticed more as scholars better understand ancient rhetoric and epistolary practices). The use of coworkers, secretaries, rough drafts, and revisions suggests that a NT letter was likely worked and reworked before being dispatched.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
First Peter is a concise handbook designed to prepare theChristian community to live faithfully and wisely as a minorityfacing an increasingly hostile community and government.
Outline
I.Greetings (1:1–2)
II.Who We Are in Christ (1:3–2:10)
III.How We Should Behave to Be Like Christ (2:11–3:12)
IV.How We Should Handle a Hostile Community (3:13–5:11)
V.Farewell (5:12–14)
Authorship
Theletter is written by Peter, apostle and leader of the original twelvedisciples of Jesus, who were with Jesus throughout his ministry fromhis baptism until his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).
Thestyle of the author’s Greek is very well developed for aGalilean fisherman. Early on, Peter had astonished hearers who couldnot explain his eloquence, given that he had had no formal rabbinictraining (Acts 4:13; cf. Luke 2:46–47). Examples of tinkers(John Bunyan), cobblers (William Carey), and teenagers (C.H.Spurgeon), not to mention authors excelling in their third language(Joseph Conrad), who write in polished styles suffice to reassure anydoubts concerning Peter’s ability.
Theauthor describes himself as a “fellow elder” and “witnessof Christ’s sufferings” (5:1), speaking in thefirst-person singular (2:11; 5:1, 12–13). He is with John Mark(5:13), and the letter is written “with the help of”Silvanus/Silas (5:12), who may have served as Peter’s scribe,or amanuensis.
Anumber of second-century authorities report that Peter ministered inRome, on and off, for up to twenty-five years prior to his executionby Nero in AD 65. Peter’s readers were suffering various trialsand abuse (5:9), although no mention is made of any such threat tothe church in Rome. It is therefore difficult to date 1Peter,although it must have been written between AD 50 and 64. If 2Pet.3:1 indicates a subsequent letter to the same community, as seemsprobable, a date closer to AD 64 would be more likely.
Destination
Theletter is addressed to “God’s elect, exiles scatteredthroughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia”(1:1). “Scattered” is a term used by the LXX to refer tothe dispersion of the Jews originating with the Babylonian exile andis taken up as such in the NT (John 11:52; James 1:1). “Exiles”(KJV: “strangers”) was the word used to designate peoplewho were not Roman citizens (1Pet. 2:11).
Scholarshave differed as to whether Peter was addressing a predominantlyJewish or Gentile community. The extensive allusions to the OTthroughout the letter—with particular reference to the exodus,Passover, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, Ps. 34, andProverbs—assume that the readers have a good knowledge of allthree sections of the OT. On the other hand, Peter also speaks oftheir former “ignorance” (1:14), of the “empty wayof life handed down to you from your ancestors” (1:18), and ofpagans thinking it strange that they do not continue in their formerpagan lifestyle (4:3–4). All his citations are from the GreekOT.
Thefive areas listed were located in what is today central and northernTurkey. The order may reflect the courier’s route. Paul hadministered in some of these regions (Galatia and Asia), and Jews fromCappadocia, Pontus, and Asia were in Jerusalem earlier when Peterpreached his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:9).
Theemperor Claudius (r. AD 41–54) established Roman colonies inthese five areas. It was Roman policy to extend the empire byestablishing cities as centers of Roman culture, government, andtrade. This often involved forced deportation of whole communities.In AD 49 Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because “the Jewsconstantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus”(Suetonius, Claud. 25.14–15). There is good reason to thinkthat this may indicate the kind of disturbances also seen over thenext few years in Philippi (Acts 16:20–21), Thessalonica (Acts17:1–9), Corinth (Acts 18:12–17), and Ephesus (Acts 19).
Peterdoes not name any member of the community to which he is writing, noris there any indication that he had ever been there. These regionswere populated by Romans as part of a program of Roman colonization.As such, Christians who were not Roman citizens were in a veryvulnerable position. The threat here comes from Gentiles, not otherJews (2:12). There is no mention of false teachers or other internaldivisions.
Peterwrites from “Babylon” (5:13), probably a code word for“Rome” (cf. Rev. 17:5, 9). The references to Babylon hereand the Diaspora in 1:1 act as bookends designed to draw the parallelbetween the church’s present experience and that of the Jewsduring the exile (“fiery ordeal” [4:12]; cf. Dan. 1–6).
MainThemes
Peterstates that it is all about grace (5:12). The Christian’sidentity is grounded in the person and work of Jesus (1:2). Hissufferings are a model of what Christians are expected to endure(1:11, 19; 2:21–25; 3:1–18; 4:12–17; 5:1), so hisreaders should see this as normal. This suffering is also a refiningand testing process (1:6–7; 5:8–10). It fulfills God’splan as revealed in the Scriptures (1:10–12, 23–25); thusone can be sure that behind all such experiences stand the purposesof God (1:2–3, 20–21; 3:18–22; 4:19; 5:6–7).Things are not out of control but rather are leading to theaccomplishment of salvation for many (1:5, 9). Jesus has triumphedover all powers and authorities that might be fearfully rangedagainst his people (3:18–22) (see Descent into Hades). LikeNoah and those on the ark, Christ’s people will be deliveredthrough all events to an outcome of joy (1:6, 8).
Aknowledge of the Scriptures (1:10–12, 23–25) equips thosewho are being sanctified to rightly understand what is happening andso fear God, whose judgment approaches (1:17; 3:6; 5:5, 7), ratherthan people. The believer should look first to God’s approvalwhile being aware of the watching eye of those who would seek a basisfor a charge (2:12; 3:1, 17; 4:14–19). This involves puttingoff the pagan lifestyle (2:1, 11) and putting on obedience (1:2,14–16; 3:1–17). Peter surveys the behaviors most in needof attention: self-control, particularly in the way Christians speakwhen provoked (2:22–23; 3:4, 9–11), and family life,particularly when a woman is married to a threatening, unbelievinghusband (3:1–6). Christian husbands are admonished to set acounterexample by knowing and honoring their wives (3:7). It isespecially important that believers are seen to be submissive togovernment authorities (2:13–17) and to their masters(2:18–20). Within the church, sound leadership (5:1–4)supported by a new generation of respectful young men (5:5) isessential. Throughout all of this, Peter points the reader to thesanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (1:2).
Peterstrongly argues that the appropriate response to injustice andpersecution is grace given as received from Jesus. The Christian’sdefense is the gospel. Like Job, the believer’s mode ofresistance is to present the integrity of a holy, redeemed, priestlylifestyle (3:15–16). One endures through informed belief in thegospel and through faithfulness to the triune God, who keeps hispromises (1:9; cf. Hab. 2:4). The outcome is left in God’shands (5:6–7).
The biblical writers assure us that God does not change. Thepsalmist contrasts the perishable cosmos with the Creator himself:“But you remain the same, and your years will never end”(Ps. 102:27). In Mal. 3:6, God says that Jacob’s sons will notbe consumed, because “I the Lord do not change.” Jameshas the same objective: to reassure his people that God will remainthe source of good things, since God “does not change likeshifting shadows” (James 1:17). This doctrine of God’sunchangeableness, or immutability, should comfort his people becauseit implies that he is ever willing and able to keep his promises. Achangeable God might decide not to honor his commitments or becomepowerless to do so. In the first case, he loses his moral perfection;in the second, he ceases to be omnipotent.
God’sstatus as a perfect being makes this doctrine difficult to formulate,based on the worry that perfect things cannot change without becomingimperfect. Thus, Aristotle’s God, the “Unmoved Mover,”could do nothing but contemplate his own excellence, since all othertopics would be lesser. Similarly, such a “god” could noteven monitor the goings-on of human existence, since this activitywould change the content of his own mind. Aristotle’s God is“self-actualized” in every imaginable sense. But whilethe Bible says that God does not change, it also tells us that herelates to human beings and their lives in all sorts of ways. Heenjoys fellowship with Adam before the fall and gets angry when hispeople sin. God loves us, and he has worked in history to show us whohe is and to redeem us. The incarnation of Christ, the Son, is theprime example of God’s apparent mutability or changeableness onsome level, however one describes it. At the very least, he changeswith respect to his temporal relationships every time a sinnerrepents: the latter was lost, and now is found.
Thedoctrine of the immutability of God must come to grips with passageslike Gen. 6:5–7; Exod. 32:14; Jer. 18:7–10; 26:19; Amos7:3; and Jon. 3:10, which suggest that God sometimes regrets pastdecisions, changes his mind, and reverses himself in response tohuman actions, whether positive or negative. Some Christians respondto these passages by asserting that God is semidependent on creation(“process theology”) or mutable in his knowledge andpurposes (“open theism”). A better solution is todistinguish between (1)God’s essential nature and eternalpurposes, which cannot change, and (2)his contingentrelationships. God never retreats and never improvises, nor can hebecome “ungodlike.” Nevertheless, he is a real person,fully able to experience anger, joy, love, and longing—not lessbecause he is God, but rather far moreso.
To seek guidance from God. In the OT, this usually was donethrough an intermediary such as a prophet, priest, or seer (Exod.18:15; Judg. 18:5; 1Sam. 9:9; 22:15; 2Kings 8:8; 22:18;Jer. 37:7). The priests could also inquire of God through the use ofthe ephod and the Urim and Thummim, which were God-ordained lots(Num. 27:21; 1Sam. 23:9–13; 28:6). Warfare, health, andgovernance were primary concerns for inquiries to God but were by nomeans the only issues (1Sam. 23:2; 2Sam. 5:23; 2Kings3:11; 2Chron. 18:4, 6–7). Of course, inquiring of God didnot guarantee a favorable answer or any answer at all (Ezek. 20:3).Only certain avenues of inquiry were acceptable to God. For example,the Israelites were prohibited from consulting wizards, mediums, andnecromancers (Deut. 18:10–11; 1Sam. 28:3, 7). Naturally,the Israelites were forbidden to inquire of other deities, such asBaal-Zebub, and doing so had harmful consequences (2Kings1:2–6). Although people were dependent on God’sself-revelation, God did not need to wait on them to inquire. Hecould communicate in dreams, visions, by sending a prophet or anangel, or more directly (Gen. 20:3; Exod.3:2).
Theavenues to inquiring of God changed with the advent of Jesus and theloss of the second temple. This change was foreshadowed in Jesus’conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. Previously, accessto God involved seeking him at the proper place. With no temple,access to God was severely limited. As a result, in rabbinic Judaism,Torah study and interpretation became the primary means for inquiringof God. In the NT, when Christ’s death tore in half thetemple’s curtain, and when the Spirit came, access to Godbecame open to all who were believers (Matt. 27:51; Acts 1:5, 8;2:33; Heb. 6:19–20). Thus, for the disciple of Jesus, toinquire of God is as simple as asking (John 11:22; James 1:5).
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Jude, whose name is another form of “Judah” or“Judas” (Heb. Yehuda; Gk. Ioudas), identifies himself as“a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (Jude1). Because the author does not elaborate on the identity of thisJames, many conclude that a well-known individual named “James”must be in mind, one whom the readers would be able to identifyeasily. Certainly this is James the brother of Jesus and leader ofthe Jerusalem church (James 1:1; Acts 15:13; Gal. 2:9). This wouldmake Jude the brother of Jesus, named among Jesus’ othersiblings in Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3. The brothers of Jesus were neverreferred to as “apostles” in the early church, whichmakes sense in light of the fact that Jude both appeals to hisauthority as a “servant” of Jesus rather than as an“apostle” and implies that he is not among the apostleswhose teaching he cites in Jude 17. The NT does not record any moredetails regarding Jude’s life other than what we can infer fromthe fact that Jesus’ brothers did not accept him as the Messiahduring his lifetime (John 7:5), and that only after the resurrectiondid they become followers (Acts 1:14). According to Hegesippus,quoted in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.19.1–20.6), two grandsons ofJude were brought before the Roman emperor Domitian and were asked ifthey were descendants of David. But after finding that they werecommon farmers who posed no threat to Rome, he released them “asbeneath his notice.”
Retribution refers to “giving what is due,”usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theologicaldoctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term inEnglish translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×).Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral orderis built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov.26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight,meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not onlyon the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2Cor.9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1)life isnot overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2)human actions affect thefuture, (3)the world is morally uniform, and (4)humanrevenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom.12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands areintended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address ofretribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut.28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential(Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).
Thispoetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam andEve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge(Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9)(cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign Godacting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of hisintentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise ofYahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenantfellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensionsexist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—thisdoes not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4).In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justiceand reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev.22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understandsthe limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).
Whilethe notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept ofcorrespondence is helpful for understanding the concept ofretribution. God’s judgments reveal (1)a correspondencebetween act and effect, (2)accountability to known law, (3)adebt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4)punishment thatreenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divinewarrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve itfrom all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19;Deut. 7:10; 1Sam. 24:19; 2Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149;Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2Thess.1:5–10).
God’sreasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, whilehis purposes are essentially restorative and developmental.Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifiesthe world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance anddeliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retributiongives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged andunacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps.58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity,promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner ofthe ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.
The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While thetheme is most fully developed in the NT, its originis the OT,where the emphasis falls on God’s king-ship. God is king ofIsrael (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of allthe earth (2Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1–4; Isa. 6:5;Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reignas king are references to a day when God will become king over hispeople (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). Thisemphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism andtakes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and itsanticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, whichabandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the agewill the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom isfurther developed throughout the NT.
TheSynoptic Gospels
Inthe Synoptic Gospels the phrase “the kingdom of God”occurs over one hundred times in Mark, Luke, and Matthew (where“kingdom of heaven” is a synonym for “kingdom ofGod”). Three views have been defended regarding whether and towhat extent the kingdom of God was present in Jesus’ ministry.In other words, how are we to interpret the phrase “kingdom ofGod” in the Synoptics? The three views are consistenteschatology, realized eschatology, and inaugurated eschatology.
Consistenteschatology.Albert Schweitzer, a biblical scholar from the late nineteenthcentury, first popularized consistent eschatology. Here, “consistent”means consistent with the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day,which interpreted the kingdom of God as something coming in thefuture. Judaism at the time of Christ divided history into twoperiods: this age of sin, when sin rules, and the age to come, whenthe Messiah is expected to bring the kingdom of God to earth.Schweitzer concluded that an apocalyptic understanding of the kingdomwas foundational not only for Christ’s teaching, but also tounderstanding his life. Thus, Schweitzer maintained that Jesusbelieved that it was his vocation to become the coming Son of Man.Initially, Jesus revealed this messianic secret only to Peter, James,and John. Later, Peter told it to the rest of the Twelve. Judas toldthe secret to the high priest, who used it as the grounds for Jesus’execution (Mark 14:61–64; cf. Dan. 7:13).
Accordingto Schweitzer, when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a mission toproclaim the coming kingdom of God, he did not expect them to return.The Twelve were the “men of violence” (cf. Matt. 11:12)who would provoke the messianic tribulation that would herald thekingdom. Whereas some earlier scholars believed that one could onlywait passively for the kingdom, Schweitzer believed that the missionof Jesus was designed to provoke its coming. When this did nothappen, Jesus determined to give his own life as a ransom for many(Mark 10:45) and so cause the kingdom to come.
Accordingto Schweitzer, Jesus took matters into his own hands by precipitatinghis death, hoping that this would be the catalyst for God to make thewheel of history turn to its climax—the arrival of the kingdomof God. But, said Schweitzer, Jesus was wrong again, and he died indespair. So for Schweitzer, Jesus never witnessed the dawning of theage to come; it lay in the distant future, separated from thispresent age.
Onthe positive side, Schweitzer called attention to the fact that themessage of Jesus is rooted in first-century apocalyptic Judaism andits concept of the kingdom of God. This connection is stillfoundational to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy and theGospels today. On the negative side, Schweitzer’s selective useof evidence and rejection of the historicity of much of the Gospeltradition resulted in a skewed perspective on the present dimensionsof Jesus’ eschatology.
Realizedeschatology.In contrast to futurist eschatology, where the kingdom of God awaitsa final consummation at the end of history, realized eschatologyviews the kingdom of God as already realized in the person andmission of Jesus. The futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching arereduced to a minimum, and his apocalyptic language is viewed assymbolic of theological truths.
Theperson most responsible for advocating this position is Britishscholar C.H. Dodd. In his 1935 book Parables of the Kingdom, hefocused on Jesus’ teachings that announced the arrival of thekingdom with his coming. For instance, in Luke 11:20 Jesus says, “Butif I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of Godhas come upon you” (cf. Luke 17:21; Matt. 13). Eschatologybecomes a matter of the present experience rather than any kind offuture event. The kingdom has fully come in the messianic ministry ofJesus.
Mostinterpreters have criticized Dodd’s realized eschatology forignoring Jesus’ teachings that point to a future consummationof the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 24–25; Mark 13). When all of Jesus’teachings are considered, futurist eschatology balances realizedeschatology. To be sure, the kingdom arrived with Jesus, but Jesushimself taught that history still awaits a final completion. Thekingdom of God is both “already” and “not yet,”which leads us to the third view of the relationship of the kingdomof God to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Inauguratedeschatology. Thethird view, inaugurated eschatology, is commonly connected with thetwentieth-century Swiss theologian Oscar Cullmann. Like others beforehim, Cullmann understood that the Jewish notion of the two agesformed an important background for understanding the message ofJesus. According to Judaism, history is divided into two periods:this age of sin and the age to come (i.e., the kingdom of God). ForJews the advent of the Messiah would effect the shift from the formerto the latter. In other words, Judaism viewed the two ages asconsecutive. According to Cullmann, Jesus Christ announced that theend of time, the kingdom of God, had arrived within history (see Mark1:15 pars.; esp. Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62;10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17,24–25, 29; Acts 28:31). Yet other passages suggest thatalthough the age to come had already dawned, it was not yet complete.It awaited the second coming for its full realization (Luke 13:28–29;14:15; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; Acts 1:6). Hence the adjective“inaugurated” characterizes this eschatology. Such a viewis pervasive in the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:17–21; 3:18, 24;1Cor. 15:24; 1Tim. 4:1; 2Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1John2:18). So for inaugurated eschatology, the two ages are simultaneous:the age to come exists in the midst of this present age. Christianstherefore live in between the two ages until the parousia (secondcoming of Christ).
Wemay break down the data in the Synoptic Gospels regarding the“already/notyet” aspects concerning the kingdom ofGod in this manner: Mark, probably the first Gospel written, recordsJesus’ programmatic statement in 1:15: “The time hascome.... The kingdom of God has come near.”Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, then goes on to demonstrate thatJesus’ miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection inauguratedthe kingdom of God. Yet it is also clear from Matthew, Mark, and Lukethat the final manifestation of the kingdom has not yet happened. Wemay draw on Luke as representative of all three Synoptics. Luke’sGospel indicates that the kingdom was present for Jesus (Luke 7:28;8:10; 10:9–11; 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21), but it alsoawaited the second coming for its completion (6:20–26; 11:2;12:49–50, 51–53; 13:24–30; 21:25–29;22:15–18, 30). The same dual aspect of the kingdom pertains toLuke’s second volume, Acts. The kingdom was present in Jesus’ministry and now through his disciples (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25;28:23–31), but it will not be completed until Christ comesagain (1:6; 14:22).
TheGospel of John
John’sGospel has only three references to the kingdom of God. Nicodemus wastold by Jesus that he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom ofGod (3:3–5). Yet Jesus’ kingdom is not worldly in nature,but spiritual (18:36). Although the Gospel of John contains both thepresent (“already”) aspect and the future (“notyet”) aspect, the focus is clearly on the present. This is whymany scholars label the Fourth Gospel the “Gospel of RealizedEschatology.” This emphasis on the “already” can beseen in John in the following ways: (1)Eternal life, orentrance into the kingdom of God, can be a present possession (3:5–6,36; 6:47, 51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:24–26). (2)Theeschatological promise of sonship is granted to the believer in Jesusnow (1:12–13; 3:3–8; 4:14). (3)The generalresurrection has already begun (5:25). (4)The Spirit, the giftof the end time, currently indwells believers (7:37–39;14:15–31; 15:26–27; 16:5–16; 20:22–23).(5)Final judgment is determined by one’s present responseto Jesus (3:19; 5:22–24, 27, 30–38; 9:38; 12:31–33).(6)The spirit of antichrist has already entered the world sceneto oppose Christ (6:70; 13:2, 27). (7)Jesus’ death on thecross seems to absorb some elements of the messianic woes or aspectsof tribulation. In other words, Jesus’ passion was where theend-time holy war was waged, and his death and resurrection began theend of the forces of evil (15:18–16:11).
Onthe other hand, the Gospel of John also includes some typical future(“not yet”) aspects of eschatology. For example, thefuture resurrection is still expected (5:26–30). Likewise, thefuture second coming of Christ is alluded to (14:1–4; 21:22).Admittedly, however, the “already” aspect of the kingdomof God seems to overshadow the “not yet” perspective inthe Fourth Gospel.
PaulineLiterature
Thephrase “kingdom of God” and/or “kingdom of Christ”occurs twelve times in Paul’s writings.
Rom.14:17 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 4:20 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 6:9-10 – kingdom of God (2x) (future tense)
1Cor. 15:24 – kingdom of Christ/God (present/future tense)
1Cor. 15:50 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Gal.5:21 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Eph.5:5 – kingdom of Christ/God (future tense)
Col.1:13 – kingdom of the Son (present tense)
Col.4:11 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Thess. 2:12 – his [God’s] kingdom (future tense)
2Thess. 1:5 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Threeobservations emerge from the chart: (1)The kingdom ofChrist/God is both present and future, already here and not yetcomplete. This is consistent with the Gospels and Acts. (2)Christand God are, in at least two instances, interchanged, suggestingequality of status between them (cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10).(3)In 1Cor. 15:24 we find the most precise description ofthe exact relationship between the kingdoms of Christ and God: theinterim messianic kingdom begun at the resurrection of Christ willone day give way to the eternal kingdom of God. Such a temporarykingdom is attested to in apocalyptic Judaism and may underlie Rev.20:1–6.
Christianstherefore live in between the two ages, in the messianic kingdom.
Hebrewsand the General Epistles
Hebrewsand the General Epistles continue the theme of the “already/notyet”aspects of the kingdom.
Hebrews.The following ideas associated in Second Temple Judaism with thearrival of God’s kingdom are seen by the author of Hebrews tohave been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ: (1)theappearance of the Messiah of the last days indicates the dawning ofthe kingdom of God (1:2; 9:9–10); (2)the greattribulation/messianic woes that were expected to occur in connectionwith the advent of the Messiah are now here (2:5–18; cf. 5:8–9;7:27–28; 10:12; 12:2); (3)the outpouring of the HolySpirit has happened (6:4–5); (4)the manifestation of theeschatological high priest at the end of history has taken place inJesus (7:26–28), who has also established the new covenant ofthe last days (8:6–13). Compare the preceding statements inHebrews with that author’s explicit mention of the presence ofthe kingdom of God in 12:18–28. And yet the kingdom of God isnot yet fully here. The church continues to suffer the messianicwoes, as is evidenced in the intermingling of Jesus’ sufferingof the great tribulation with the present afflictions of theChristian (2:5–18; 3:7–4:6; 5:7–6:12; 10:19–39;12:1–2; 13:11–16). Furthermore, the exhortations topersevere in the faith that punctuate the book of Hebrews (2:1–4;3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) area familiar theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.
TheGeneral Epistles.The main message of James is that the last days are here (1:2; 5:3)and with it the messianic woes (1:2–12; 5:1–12).Therefore, believers will need to faithfully endure the greattribulation until the second coming of Christ. But there are twoindications that James also teaches that the kingdom of God hasdawned in the midst of the great tribulation. First, Christiansexperience even now the eschatological quality of joy (James 1:2–3;cf. Joel 2:21–27). Second, Christians also share in theend-time gift of wisdom (James 1:5–8).
FirstPeteris similar to James with regard to its inaugurated eschatology. Thus,the church suffers the messianic woes/great tribulation (1Pet.1:6, 11; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 5:1–9). Nevertheless,the age to come/kingdom of God has broken into the midst of this age,as evidenced by the eschatological joy and God’s protectivepower that it brings (1:5–6).
SecondPeterdoes seem to stress the “not yet” aspect of the kingdomof God. Thus, the kingdom of God still waits to be entered (1:11), ishindered by end-time apostasy (2Pet. 2), and has been postponed(3:1–10). Yet the “already” aspect of the kingdomis not entirely absent. This is evidenced by the fact that thetransfiguration of Christ on the mountain was a display of the comingpower and glory of the age to come, a glory revealed to the discipleson the mountain and now communicated to all believers (1:16–19).
Judeis devoted to alerting Christians to the reality that they are in themidst of the end-time holy war (vv. 3, 20–23), as can be seenby their struggle with the false teaching of end-time apostasy (vv.5–19). Nevertheless, because believers possess theeschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, they will prevail to fullyenter the kingdom of God (v.20).
TheLetters of John attest to the overlapping of the two ages—thatis, inaugurated eschatology. Thus, on the one hand, the spirit ofantichrist is here (1John 2:18; 2John 7), along with thefalse teaching that it breeds (1John 2:20–29; cf. 2–3John); but on the other hand, the Johannine community has theend-time anointing of the Holy Spirit, which preserves believers fromevil and deception (1John 2:20–21; 3:1–10).Moreover, Christians presently have eternal life through Christ, oneof the blessings of the kingdom of God (1John 5:11–13).
Revelation
The“already/notyet” aspects of the kingdom of God aremanifested in Revelation in the following way: the kingdom of God hasalready dawned in heaven, but it has not yet appeared on earth.Regarding the former, it is clear from 1:9; 5:1–14; 12:1–6that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated the advent ofthe kingdom of God in heaven. Thus, Jesus obediently underwent themessianic woes on the cross and was then raised to heavenly glory,triumphant over the great tribulation. There in heaven, Christ reignsas the invisible Lord over all (including Caesar). But that thekingdom of God has not yet descended to earth is clear in Revelationfrom two present realities. First, even though Jesus has endured thegreat tribulation/messianic woes, his followers continue to face manytrials (chaps. 6–18). There is no deliverance for them fromsuch affliction until the return of Christ in glory (chap. 19). Theonly possible exception to this is the divine protection of the144,000 (chaps. 7; 14). Second, the kingdom of God has not appearedon earth; that event awaits the parousia (chap. 20 [assuming that thepremillennial interpretation of that chapter is the most viablereading]). In all of this, it seems that the messianic woes/greattribulation are the divine means for purging the earth in preparationfor the future arrival of the temporal, messianic kingdom (chap. 20).After Christ’s one-thousand-year reign on earth, this temporalmessianic kingdom will give way to the eternal kingdom of God and itsnew earth and new heaven (chaps. 21–22). It must beacknowledged, however, that interpretations of chapters 20–22greatly vary, depending on whether one takes a premillennial,amillennial, or postmillennial perspective.
Conclusion
Thepreceding data thus seem to confirm that the most apt description ofthe relationship between the two ages and the kingdom of God thatinforms the NT is inaugurated eschatology: with the first coming ofChrist, the kingdom of God/the age to come dawned, but it will not beuntil the second coming of Christ that the age to come/kingdom of Godwill be complete. The church therefore lives in between the times.That is to say, the age to come has broken into this present age, andit is only through the eye of faith that one can now perceive thepresence of the kingdom of God.
Leisure time offers a respite from work, those essentialduties of life such as paid employment and maintaining a household,to pursue other activities. Such nonobligatory pursuits range fromentertainment to fine art, from peaceful relaxation to physicalactivity.
Fromthe beginning, humankind was intended to work (Gen. 1:28; 2:15), butGod also set apart one day per week for his creatures to share in hisdivine rest (Gen. 2:2–3; Exod. 20:8–11). This weekly restshould bring to mind God’s creation and the final rest in theage to come (Heb. 4:9–11). Although leisure time and Sabbathobservance are not identical, both are opportunities to give thanks,worship, and put hope in God. They also refresh and enrich earthlylife.
Indeed,every good thing is a gift from the Father (James 1:17), includingtime off from daily duties. How one uses leisure time is thus amatter of stewardship, much like one’s use of money and workingtime (cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Thus, although the Bible does notdiscuss playing sports or writing poetry, it does proclaim Christ asLord over all spheres of life. Therefore “whether you eat ordrink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”(1Cor. 10:31).
A missive or epistle (2Chron. 35:4; Ezra 4:7). Usually, ancient Near Eastern letters were written on perishable materials, as opposed to, for example, inscriptions in stone. Since there are few places where such material could survive (deserts or anaerobic bogs), one would expect few surviving letters; yet they number in the tens of thousands. The ancients were letter writers. Significantly, reading old letters has remained a significant aspect of the Christian faith. Today, many Christians regularly read someone else’s mail—the letters of the NT—and face the expected interpretation challenges.
Form
Old Testament letters. Although more than a dozen letters are embedded in the OT (e.g., 2Sam. 11:15; 1Kings 21:9–10; 2Chron. 21:12–15), no OT book is in letter form. Embedded OT letters are truncated or summaries and tell us little of the typical ancient format. From the Lachish letters we infer that Hebrew letters generally opened with “To Addressee, greetings (or blessing),” a technical word of transition (“and now”), and no formal closing. By the Second Temple period, Aramaic letters were evolving into the structure seen in Greco-Roman style.
New Testament letters. Unlike the OT, the NT has twenty-one books in letter form: the thirteen traditional letters of Paul, the anonymous letter of Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Two letters are embedded in Acts (15:23–29; 23:26–30). It is unlikely that the “letters” in Rev. 2–3 were ever dispatched letters. The NT also mentions other letters (Acts 18:27; 1Cor. 5:9; 7:1; 16:3; 2Cor. 2:3–4; Col. 4:16; 2Thess. 2:2; 3:17).
Extant NT letters share the basic format of Greco-Roman letters, beginning with “Sender to Recipient, greetings [chairein].” A prayer (much less commonly a thanksgiving) transitioned into the letter body. The body of the letter opened with various phrases in a set format (stereotyped formula), such as disclosure: “I want you to know, brother(s), that...” (P.Oxy. 1493; Gal. 1:11); astonishment: “I am astonished how...” (P.Mich. 8.479; Gal. 1:6); petition, joy, and so forth.
The letter closed with final admonitions, greetings, good wishes, and sometimes a date. In addition to a set structure, the content was often far more stereotypical than letters today. Even letters to a family member had generic greetings, set phraseology, and standardized wishes for good health.
Yet, looking beyond the basic letter outline and the use of everyday language and formulas, it becomes clear that NT letters were not part and parcel with typical papyrus letters. Rather than the typical honor markers of rank or city, NT letter writers identified themselves by association with Jesus, sometimes describing themselves as slaves in his household (Rom. 1:1; James 1:1). The typical letter greeting (chairein) was Christianized into “grace” (charis), with the addition of “peace” (eirēnē)—the equivalent of Jewish shalom. A closing benediction was used instead of the typical final health wish/farewell. More significantly, most NT letters were far longer and more complex. The typical private letter of the poor averaged 87 words in length. Literary letters were much longer. Cicero averaged 295 words. Seneca led, with an average 995 per letter. Paul’s letter to Rome has 7,114 words. Paul averaged (including all 13 letters) 2,495 words. Not surprisingly, Paul’s opponents ridiculed his letters as “weighty” (2Cor. 10:10).
Letters of the NT also assume that the audience is familiar with Jewish Christian tradition (e.g., Jude), inserting hymnic fragments, traditions, OT quotations/allusions, and so on, often without explanation or indication. The letters were to be read in front of the congregation (1Thess. 5:27). Paul included longer and more complex thanksgivings than any known ancient writer, often using the opening thanksgiving to preview the letter’s main topics (e.g., 1Cor. 1:4–7). Paul’s letters also contain large amounts of paraenesis (moral exhortation).
Although the typical papyrus letter was brief, thus keeping its cost reasonable, it was still not a trivial expense. For example, a soldier wrote a typical letter home to indicate that he had reached his assignment safely (P.Mich. 8.490), with a likely cost of about a half denarius, or in modern United States currency, about fifty dollars. Yet the length of many NT letters made them far more expensive. Writing to the Romans today would have cost Paul over two thousand U.S. dollars. A letter for public reading (Col. 4:16) needed quality papyrus in good handwriting, not some draft in hurried scrawl (Cicero, Att. 13.14–25). Appearances mattered. (For speakers, appearance was an important part of the rhetoric.)
The official Roman postal service was not for private use. The common person entrusted letters to someone already going to or near the desired destination. This method was popular, free, and surprisingly reliable, though haphazard (P.Mich. 8.499). Otherwise, sending a letter required dispatching a private carrier, often a slave, or a hired carrier (tabellarius). These carriers had advantages. They could guarantee the letter’s authenticity, since forgeries existed (2Thess. 2:2). If able, they carried other items, often mentioned in the letter (P.Mich. 8.465–467) or the reply (Phil. 4:18). Carriers often provided additional (or confidential) details (so Col. 4:7; Cicero, Fam. 11.20.4; 11.26.5). The writer often commended the carrier as “trustworthy” to guarantee the carrier’s veracity. In Eph. 6:20–22, Paul wants it clear that he intended Tychicus to talk about Paul’s imprisonment (as proof that Paul was not ashamed of his chains), and not that Tychicus was merely revealing secrets, as sometimes was done (1Cor. 1:11). Finally, Paul may have selected a specific carrier to facilitate that letter’s reception (Romans, Colossians). (See also Paul.)
Function
On the simplest level, letters had two primary functions. Expressions such as “I pray for your health and success” (P.Mich. 8.477) and “Write me how you are and what you want” (P.Mich. 8.498) were to start or keep a relationship with the recipient. Letters were also to inform (Cic-ero, Fam. 2.4.1), as when a son wrote his father, “While I was lying ill on the ship, they were stolen from me” (P.Mich. 8.468). Yet around the NT period, aristocratic writers (beginning with Cicero, then Seneca to Pliny) were modifying the simple private letter, lengthening it and elevating its style. They were using private letters to propagate religious, political, and philosophical ideas.
Scholarly study affected the study of NT letters for nearly one hundred years by arguing for a sharp distinction between “letters” (the letters of the lower classes, seen largely in the recently discovered papyri) and “epistles” (the literary letters of the aristocratic elite). Thus, Adolf Deissmann argued that the forms of NT letters (koine vocabulary, the diatribe, etc.) were indicators of the letter’s intended function: as private letters, they were artless, unschooled, and dashed off in the midst of a flurry of other activities. On the other hand, Cicero intended his “epistles” to Atticus to be read by the broader aristocratic community and thus wrote with that in mind, creating artfully composed treatises in letter form. Although they had the appearance of private letters, Cicero carefully crafted his “epistles,” knowing that others were reading over Atticus’s shoulder. NT letters were not “epistles”; they were spontaneous and should not be read as careful compositions. Yet biblical letters were not merely private documents. Even those addressed to individuals (1–2 Timothy, Titus) seem to speak to the church behind the recipient (3John attempts to work around Diotrephes and address the church behind Gaius). Our categories of “public” versus “private” fit the ancient world poorly. Since the general function of letters was changing, NT letters should be seen as part of this shifting landscape.
Moreover, as Greco-Roman letters continued to be studied, NT letters seemed more than mere artless notes, scribbled in a spare moment. Indeed, seeing signs of careful rhetorical composition, scholars have noted similarities with categories outlined in Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks for speeches: forensic ( judicial), epideictic (demonstrative), and deliberative. Arguing that letters were, in a sense, written speeches, various scholars have attempted to identify elements in NT letters that match the required outline for a specific rhetorical argument, meaning that a letter’s rhetorical form could indicate its function. Thus, identifying the rhetorical form would reveal the author’s motive for writing, whether the writer was intending to make a legal defense of personal status or to shape the behavior of the readers. While these studies generate lively debate and some interesting results, the usefulness of applying them to letters is still unclear. Rhetorical analyses of passages in the letters have proved to be more helpful than those categorizing an entire letter. Obviously, biblical letter writers were not writing in a vacuum, but biblical letters seem to mix purposes and not fit neatly into rhetorical categories.
Biblical letters were not dashed off with anything remotely resembling the rapid-fire pace at which email and text messages are sent today. Even phrases that seem to imply casual correspondence (1Cor. 1:16) are more likely signs of careful rhetorical arguments. It is unlikely that biblical letters represent the work of just a long day or a few evenings. These letters show signs of careful composition (noticed more as scholars better understand ancient rhetoric and epistolary practices). The use of coworkers, secretaries, rough drafts, and revisions suggests that a NT letter was likely worked and reworked before being dispatched.
The Letter of James has been hailed as possibly the earliest,most Jewish, and most practical of all NT letters. James 3:13 aptlycommunicates the book’s theme: “Who is wise andunderstanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, bydeeds done in humility that comes from wisdom.” The terms“wise” and “wisdom” occur five times in thebook (1:5; 3:13 [2×], 15, 17). Hence, the author instructed hisreaders on leading a life of faith that was characterized by a wisdomexpressed through speech and actions (2:12).
LiteraryFeatures
Theauthor’s employment of picturesque, concrete language has closeaffinities to OT wisdom literature and reflects Jesus’ teachingin the Sermon on the Mount.
James1:2 – Matthew 5:10-12
James1:4 – Matthew 5:48
James1:5; 5:15 – Matthew 7:7-12
James1:9 – Matthew 5:3
James1:20 – Matthew 5:22
James1:22 – Matthew 7:21
James2:5 – Matthew 5:3
James2:13 – Matthew 5:7; 6:14-15
James2:14-16 – Matthew 7:21-23
James3:12 – Matthew 7:16
James3:17-18 – Matthew 5:9
James4:4 – Matthew 6:24
James4:10 – Matthew 5:3-4
James4:11 – Matthew 7:1-2
James5:2 – Matthew 6:19
James5:10 – Matthew 5:12
James5:12 – Matthew 5:33-37
Likethe OT wisdom literature, the teaching in James has a stronglypractical orientation. Although the book contains some lengthierparagraphs, much of it consists of sequential admonishments andethical maxims that in some cases are only loosely related to oneanother. The sentences generally are short and direct. There arefifty-four verbs in the imperative. Connection between sentences issometimes created through repeated words. Yet the overall topic ofpractical faith and wisdom links these exhortations together.
Backgroundand Occasion
Afterthe death of Stephen, many disciples were scattered into the regionsof Judea and Samaria (Acts 7:54–8:3). In Acts 11:19 thenarrator notes, “Now those who had been scattered by thepersecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far asPhoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.”James may have written this letter to instruct and comfort thosescattered believers, as he addressed his letter to “the twelvetribes dispersed abroad” (1:1 NET). These Jewish Christians nolonger had direct contact with the apostles in Jerusalem and neededto be instructed and admonished in their tribulations. Apparently,the rich were taking advantage of them (2:6; 5:1–6), and theirtrials had led to worldliness, rash words, and strained relationships(2:1; 4:1, 11; 5:9). In view of persecution, some may have beentempted to hide their faith (5:10–11). James exhorted them todemonstrate a lifestyle that would reflect their faith.
James’sView on Works and Salvation
Somereaders of this letter have observed a seeming contradiction betweenJames’s call for good works and Paul’s insistence onsalvation by grace through faith apart from works (cf. James 2:14–26with Eph. 2:8–10). The discussion is complicated by James’sargument that a faith without works cannot “save” and byhis observation that Abraham was justified by what he did, not byfaith alone (James 2:14, 20–24). Paul, by contrast, maintainsthat Abraham was justified exclusively by faith (Rom. 4:1–3).
Referringrhetorically to people who claim to have faith but have no deeds,James asks, “Can such faith save them?” (2:14). That is,can the kind of faith that results in no works be genuine? Theexpected answer is no. The kind of faith that produces no workscannot be genuine faith; rather, it is “dead” (2:17, 26)and “useless” (2:20). This kind of faith is “byitself,” meaning that it produces no lasting fruit (2:17).James’s point is that genuine faith will produce good works inthe believer’s life. By way of contrast, a mere profession isnot necessarily an indication of genuine faith. Even demons believein God, but they are not saved; the kind of belief that they exhibitis merely an acknowledgment of God’s existence (2:19).
Accordingto James, Abraham was justified not in the sense of first beingdeclared righteous, but rather in the sense that his faith wasdemonstrated as genuine when he offered up Isaac (2:21). Paul, on theother hand, argues that salvation is obtained not through works butrather by faith alone. He quotes Gen. 15:6 to show that Abrahamtrusted God and was declared righteous several years before heoffered up Isaac (Rom. 4:3).
Accordingto Paul, Abraham was justified (declared righteous) before God whenhe believed God’s promise (Gen. 15:6), but for James, he wasjustified in the sense of giving observable proof of salvationthrough his obedience to God. Whereas Paul refers to the point andmeans of positional salvation, James refers to a subsequent eventthat confirmed that Abraham was justified.
I.Faith
A.Paul (Romans 4:1-3):
1.Is personal trust in God
2.Justifies one before God
3.Is not proof of Salvation
B.James (2:14-26)
1.Is a mere claim if there is no resulting fruit
II.Works
A.Paul (Romans 4:1-3):
1.Precede salvation
2.Attempt to merit salvation
3.Cannot justify before God
B.James (2:14-26)
1.Follow conversion
2.Are evidence of salvation
3.Confirm one’s salvation
Itis important to keep in mind that each author wrote with a differentpurpose. Paul wrote against Judaizers, who taught that a man had tobe circumcised and keep the OT law to be saved. James was warningagainst a mere profession of faith that leads to self-deception(1:22). John Calvin correctly expressed the biblical teaching thatfaith alone saves, but that kind of faith does not remain alone; itproduces good works (cf. Rom. 3:21–6:14; Eph. 2:8–10;Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7).
Authorship
Theauthor identifies himself as “James, a servant of God and ofthe Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). The NT mentions five personshaving the name “James”: (1)James the son ofZebedee and the brother of John (Matt. 4:21); (2)James the sonof Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3); (3)James “the younger”(Mark 15:40); (4)James the father of the apostle Judas (notJudas Iscariot; Luke 6:16); and (5)James the brother of Jesus(Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).
Jamesthe brother of John was executed by Herod AgrippaI, who died inAD 44 (Acts 12:2). Since the Letter of James probably was writtenafter this date, the brother of John could not have written it.Neither James the son of Alphaeus, James the younger, nor James thefather of Judas was as prominent in the early church as the writer ofthis letter, who simply identified himself and assumed that hisreaders would know him (1:1). James the son of Alphaeus is mentionedfor the last time in Acts 1:13, and nothing is known of James thefather of Judas apart from the listing of his name in Luke 6:15; Acts1:13. (It is uncertain whether James the younger should be identifiedwith one of the other four or is a separate figure.) Thus, it isunlikely that any of them wrote the book. James the brother of Jesusis most likely the author of this letter.
Jamesthe Brother of the Lord
Atthe beginning of Jesus’ ministry, James, as well as hisbrothers Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon, did not believe that Jesuswas the Messiah (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:5). However, they cameto believe in him after the resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1Cor.15:7). Paul called James, along with Peter and John, the “pillars”of the church (Gal. 2:9). James does not claim to be an apostle inthis letter; however, he is identified as one in Gal. 1:19. But therethe term “apostle” probably refers to a group of leadingdisciples outside the Twelve (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 1Cor. 15:7;Gal. 2:9). Since the author of this letter employed many imperatives,his readers clearly accepted his authority. James, the brother ofJesus, who also became a key leader of the church in Jerusalem,possessed such authority (Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18; Gal. 1:18–19;2:9).
Date
Somescholars hold that the Letter of James was written around AD 62,while others argue that James wrote this letter sometime in AD 45–50.Those who favor the earlier dates point out that the Jewish characterof this letter fits with this period when the church was mainlyJewish, based on the following criteria: (1)There is no mentionof Gentile Christians in the letter. (2)The author does notrefer to the teachings of the Judaizers. If the letter had beenwritten at a later date, we would expect the author to address theissue of circumcision among Christians. (3)The mention of“teachers” (3:1) and “elders” (5:14) as theleaders in the church reflects the structure of the primitive church.(4)The word “meeting” in 2:2 is the same Greek wordas for “synagogue.” It describes the gathering place ofthe early church. This implies a time when the congregation was stillprimarily Jewish (Acts 1–7).
Outline
I.Introduction (1:1)
II.The Wise Christian Is Patient in Trials (1:2–18)
A.How the Christian should face trials (1:2–12)
B.The source of temptations (1:13–18)
III.The Wise Christian Is a Practical Doer of the Word (1:19–2:26)
A.Hearers and doers of the word (1:19–25)
B.True religion (1:26–27)
C.Prejudice in the church (2:1–13)
D.Faith that works (2:14–26)
IV.The Wise Christian Masters the Tongue (3:1–18)
A.The power of the tongue (3:1–12)
B.The wisdom from above (3:13–18)
V.The Wise Christian Seeks Peace in Relationships (4:1–17)
A.The cause of quarrels (4:1–3)
B.Warning against worldliness (4:4–10)
C.Warning against slander (4:11–12)
D.Warning against boasting and self-sufficiency (4:13–17)
VI.The Wise Christian Is Patient and Prays When Facing Difficulties(5:1–20)
A.Warning to the rich (5:1–6)
B.Exhortation to patience (5:7–12)
C.The power of prayer (5:13–18)
D.The benefit of correcting those in error (5:19–20)
The Letter of Jude is a model of the Christian approach tothose who come preaching another gospel.
Outline
I.Greetings (vv. 1–2)
II.Occasion (vv. 3–4)
III.How to Identify False Teachers (vv. 5–19)
IV.Save Some (vv. 20–23)
V.Glory to the One Who Keeps Us until That Day (vv. 24–25)
Authorship
Theauthor identifies himself as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christand a brother of James” (v.1). He was the brother ofJesus and the younger son of Mary and Joseph. Only James the brotherof Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:5; Acts 1:14) could beunambiguously identified by his first name alone. Both James and Judecall themselves “servants” of Christ (cf. James 1:1), notapostles (cf. Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1). After leading the church inJerusalem for over thirty years (cf. Acts 15), James was murdered inAD 62. Paul states that Peter and the brothers of Jesus traveled asmissionaries together and were known to the church in Corinth (1Cor.9:5). This would most likely include Jude and his family. Actsimplies that James never left Jerusalem.
Inthe third through the fifth centuries AD, some interpreters saw somedifficulty in Jude’s citation of 1Enoch, but the letterwas eventually accepted as authentic.
Destinationand Purpose
Thereis no indication of a destination. Our only clue is its associationwith 2Peter. If 2Pet. 3:1 refers to 1Peter, thenJude’s letter may well have been written to the same JewishChristians living in cities in northern Asia Minor (modern-dayTurkey).
Judesays that he started to write a general letter of encouragement buthad to write this letter instead due to the urgent situation createdby the infiltration of false teachers into these communities. Thesefalse teachers denied Jesus Christ and turned God’s grace intoan excuse to exceed God’s boundaries (v.4). This would bea particularly powerful charge against false teachers who professed ahigher law but whose personal lives were scandalous.
Judeidentified these false teachers with a long list of deviantindividuals from the past, establishing a pattern by which the readercould rightly evaluate them. This was directed to warn believersrather than persuade unbelievers. As such, it appears harsh. However,Jude’s passion was to see the believers stand firm, tostrengthen the undecided, and to evangelize the false teachers(vv.22–23). The overall goal was the salvation of all.
Opponents
Amidconsiderable speculation about the identity of Jude’sopponents, there have been few firm conclusions. The maincharacteristic of these false teachers is their immoral lifestyle andtheir tendency to turn the free grace of God into an excuse forlicentiousness (v.4). Some have suggested that they weregnostics, since some gnostic groups viewed the physical world asspiritually irrelevant and used this belief as an excuse forimmorality and debauchery. But gnosticism as a developed system isnot known to exist prior to the second century, and thecharacteristics that Jude describes were common to other groups aswell. Although it is possible that these false teachers were“proto-gnostics” of one sort or another, this proposalmust be viewed as tentative, and care should be taken not to(mis)interpret the letter on the basis of such a hypothesis.
MainThemes
Judeclearly asserts the sovereignty of God as a basis for Christianassurance, since it is God who keeps the believer (vv.1, 24).He speaks in absolute terms of the believer’s blamelessness inChrist on judgment day (v.24). By contrast, those who adhere toanother gospel are deviants who violate God’s created order.The Christian response is to hold firm to the gospel and reject falseteaching vigorously. Jude’s defense of the faith is exemplary.He has extensive knowledge of his opponents’ literature, myths,and teachings and is able to use this against them. Like Peter, hepoints his readers back to the eyewitness testimony of the apostles(vv.3, 17), who predicted such challenges as an ongoing issuefor Christians until Jesus returns. He urges believers to worktogether to maintain right doctrine, behavior, and an attitude oflove (vv.20–21) and to apply the grace of the gospel evento their opponents in hope of their salvation (vv.22–23).Jude’s final words (vv.24–25) constitute one of themost beautiful and reassuring doxologies of the Bible.
This prayer, found but not named as such in Matt. 6:9–13;Luke 11:2–5 (see also Did. 8.2, which follows the Mattheanversion), is a version of the Jewish Qaddish prayer revised aroundthe theme of the kingdom of God and is a paradigmatic model of prayergiven by Jesus to his followers.
Jesusand Prayer
Prayerwas a key element of Jewish piety and devotion to God. It was a largepart of meetings in synagogues, annual festivals, worship in thetemple, and daily recitals of the words of the law. Jesus isremembered as withdrawing into lonely and desolate places for timesof prayer (Mark 1:35; 6:46), most poignantly in the garden ofGeth-semane (Mark 14:32–42 pars.). Jesus’ time in thewilderness probably was a time of prayer and fasting as well (Mark1:12–13 pars.). Besides the Lord’s Prayer, another prayerof Jesus celebrates God’s revelation to the disciples aftertheir short itinerant mission (Matt. 11:25–26// Luke10:21).
Theevangelist Luke emphasizes Jesus at prayer more than any other Gospelwriter. Luke’s Gospel portrays Jesus as praying at his baptism(3:21), prior to his selection of the Twelve (6:12–13), priorto Peter’s confession of him as Messiah (9:18), at histransfiguration (9:28–29), prior to his teaching on the Lord’sPrayer (11:1), for Peter (22:32), and twice while on the cross(23:34, 46). Jesus also taught much about prayer, concerning how hisdisciples are or are not to pray and how to show genuine devotion inthe kingdom community without hypocrisy (Mark 11:24–25; Matt.5:44// Luke 6:28; Matt. 6:5–8; Luke 11:5–13;18:1–14; 21:36).
Inthe Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ prayers underscore the unique natureof the relationship between the Father and the Son (John 11:41–42;12:27–28). Jesus’ high priestly prayer for the disciplesconcerns their preservation and the role of the Holy Spirit in theirlives (17:1–26). A distinctive characteristic of Jesus’prayers is that God is addressed by the Aramaic word abba (“father”),and this became common in early Christian worship (Rom. 8:15; Gal.4:6).
TheLord’s Prayer: Matthew and Luke
TheLord’s Prayer takes distinct forms in Matthew and in Luke (seetable 2). The differences in the two prayers might be attributable toJesus teaching two different versions. More likely, Matthew and Lukeboth knew the prayer from a common source (written or oral), andMatthew’s version is a more liturgical elaboration of Luke’sshorter and more “original” version. Matters arecomplicated somewhat by the fact that later Christian scribes had apropensity for harmonizing the two prayers and sometimes amended themin their respective manuscripts. Both prayers agree that (1)Godis the Holy Father, (2)the kingdom is yet to come in itsfullness, (3)followers of Jesus depend on God for their dailyprovisions, (4)followers of Jesus depend on God forforgiveness, (5)which is reciprocated in the forgiveness ofothers, and include (6)the supplication that God not let themfall into the final tribulation.
Table2. The Lord’s Prayer in Matthew and Luke
Matthew6:9-13….Luke 11:2-4
OurFather in heaven,….Father,
hallowedbe your name,….hallowed be your name,
yourkingdom come,….your kingdom come.
yourwill be done, on earth as it is in heaven….
Giveus today our daily bread….Give us each day our daily bread.
Andforgive us our debts,….Forgive us our sins,
aswe also have forgiven our debtors….for we also forgiveeveryone who sins against us.
Andlead us not into temptation,….And lead us not into temptation.
Butdeliver us from the evil one….
Foryour is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. [addedin some later manuscripts; see NIV mg.]….
TheLord’s Prayer: The Petitions
Theprayer can be broken up into a number of petitions. First is thepetition addressed to God as Father and self-sanctifier. God isinvoked as Father, and his name represents both his character as aloving father and his authority as the master over all creation. Theprayer is theocentric, and it reads literally “let your name besanctified,” which is a plea that God’s holiness willbecome more and more evident. The Lord’s Prayer is not somekind of “I want” list, but rather a burst of praiseexpressing the hope that God’s sheer goodness and Godness willbe acknowledged by all.
Thesecond petition is for God to finally establish his kingdom. The“kingdom of God” is more akin to God’s reign, rule,or government. It is referred to rarely in the OT (e.g., Dan. 2:44;Obad. 21); much more prominent is the theme of God as “king.”In many of the psalms God already is king of Israel and the nations(e.g., Pss. 93–99), and yet the prophets could look forward tothe day when Yahweh would again show himself to be king preciselythrough his deliverance of Israel, which would be the ultimateexpression of the kingly power (e.g., Isa. 52:7; Zech. 14:9). Theprayer for the coming of the kingdom of God is a prayer for God toestablish his reign or rule in its final and full manifestation onearth. Although the kingdom was partially present during Jesus’ministry by virtue of his exorcisms and healings (e.g., Mark 1:15;Luke 11:20), it still awaits its final consummation. Matthew’sversion has “on earth as it is in heaven” and mayindicate a millennial view of the kingdom as supplanting earthlykingdoms, resulting in the transformation of the present age. Thepetition does not promote escapism from the world but rather pointstoward its eventual redemption and transformation by the gloriouspower of heaven becoming a reality upon the earth.
Thirdis the petition for daily provision of physical needs. The “dailybread” petition looks to God as the provider and caregiver ofhis people. Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, Jesuspreaches dependence on God as a means of escaping the worry and lureof wealth and money (Matt. 6:25–33// Luke 12:22–34).Bread was a powerful symbol for sustenance and life (e.g., Prov.22:9; Lam. 2:12; John 6:35, 48; Sir. 29:21; 34:25). The petitionassumes that God is interested in the most mundane aspects of humanexistence, and that he gives what is needed, not always what iswanted. God sustains his people in their hour of need as proof of hisfatherly care and compassion.
Fourthis the petition for divine forgiveness in coordination with mutualforgiveness among the community of Jesus’ followers. The prayerdoes not ask God to forgive persons who then in turn forgive others;rather, in reverse, the prayer implies that God forgives in the sameway that humans forgive each other (Matthew) or on the basis ofhumans forgiving each other (Luke). The role of mutual forgivenesswithin the new covenant community is spelled out clearly by Paul inColossians: “Bear with each other and forgive one another ifany of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lordforgave you” (Col. 3:13).
Fifthis the petition to be spared eschatological tribulation and themalevolence of Satan. The word peirasmos can mean “testing,”“trial,” “temptation,” or even “tribulation”or “ordeal.” The prayer could constitute a plea for helpin the face of personal trials and struggles in the believer’slife and in the journey of discipleship (e.g., 1Cor. 10:13;James 1:2), or it could denote a request to be kept from theeschatological ordeal that will precede the final and fullestablishment of the kingdom of God(e.g., Mark 14:36, 38; Rev. 3:10). Importantly, what is feared inthis prayer is not experiencing the peirasmos but rather succumbingto it—the fear of failure. In addition, the prayer asks to bedelivered from ho ponēros, “evil,” or (more likely)“the evilone” (cf. Matt. 5:39)—that is, the devil or Satan. Godtests his people to strengthen them and prove their faithfulness,while Satan tempts people to subdue and destroy them. This prayeracknowledges the fragility and helplessness of the human state in theface of human, spiritual, and cosmic evil. The prayer seeksliberation from evil in the coming reign of God’seschatological kingdom.
TheLord’s Prayer: The Theology
Thetheological framework, ethical exhortation, and social dynamicscreated or presupposed by the prayer are as follows.
First,God is the Father of the followers of Jesus. This is axiomatic in theGospels and is repeated by the Christian prayer that addresses Godthe Father as “Abba” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).
Second,an overarching importance is attached to the kingdom of God as thecontext in which all prayer is prayed. The tension of the prayer—thevery fact of needs and the threat of continuing perils—existsonly because God’s plan to restore Israel and renew creationhas not yet been put into full effect. God’s kingdom has brokeninto the world through the work of the Son of God and the giving ofthe Holy Spirit, and yet it still awaits a final consummation, whenGod is “all in all” (1Cor. 15:28) and finallyrepossesses the world for himself. The prayer presupposes the “now”and the “not yet” of God’s saving action andbalances prayers of triumph and lament in light of currenttemptations and the coming victory of God.
Third,in this prayer salvation not only is spiritual (understood as goingto heaven when one dies) but also involves the physical well-being ofa person and healthy relationships within the believing community.Just as God is concerned with physical human needs, so should humansbe with their fellow humans. If human beings forgive, then God alsoforgives them. Human relations are to mirror the values of heaven andthe vision of the kingdom.
Fourth,the world order currently exists in partial subjugation to evilpowers opposed to God’s rule, which is simply part of the diresituation of “this age.” The prayer presupposes anapocalyptic worldview characterized by dualism (God/Satan, good/evil,present/future, etc.), the necessity of encountering and perseveringagainst evil, and divine intervention to put the world order rightand replace it with the kingdom of God.
Fifth,discipleship involves a variety of traits and characteristics. Thisprayer depicts the disciple as trusting and as exhibiting faith inGod’s purpose and plan. The prayer presumes that disciplescling to God in dependence upon him in their day-to-day need. Theprayer assumes that disciples try to imitate God in reflectinggoodness, love, holiness, and peace in their respective communities.The prayer also admonishes endurance in the face of trials andpersistence (not repetitiveness) in the discipline of prayer.
Sixth,although the prayer does not have an explicit Christology, one can befound implicitly. It seems implied that Jesus is a mediator betweenthe Father and the disciples, and that he possesses an important rolein the final manifestation of the kingdom. It is, after all, thedisciples of Jesus who are promised a special place in the kingdomand a special relationship with the God of Israel.
Summary
TheLord’s Prayer has remained a common thread in the devotionallife of followers of Jesus for two millennia because it is simple,memorable, poignant, and yet profound. It is not the prayer of anelite few; it belongs to all who cry out to God as Father and see theway to God in Jesus Christ, the exalted Lord and Messiah of Israel.As teachings of Jesus hold immeasurable significance for the life,faith, praxis, and serviceof his followers, this prayerencapsulates a motif of Jesus’ own mission: God as king andthelove of God for his own people.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
Both Testaments proclaim, “The earth is the Lord’s,and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1; 1Cor. 10:26). Only theLord and Creator of the universe can rightfully claim ownership overanything, be it physical, spiritual, or moral (Job 41:11). Thus,“every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down fromthe Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). He even ownshuman beings themselves. In a biblical worldview, God alone exercisesownership. People, however, exercise stewardship over what he hasgiven.
Scriptureguides and regulates human relationships with respect to owningproperty. While people are ultimately only stewards, they must neverwrongly take or desire what God has entrusted to others. ThereforeGod commands, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15) and“You shall not covet” (20:17). The book of Proverbsexplains how to wisely dispose of one’s goods (Prov. 3:9, 10;11:25; 22:9), as does Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt.25:14–30). Numerous passages teach that human “ownership”should be earned through work, if possible (Jer. 29:5–7;2Thess. 3:10). People should acknowledge their possessions asgifts from God by giving to the poor (Eph. 4:28) and to God’sappointed leaders, both secular and Christian: “Give back toCaesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”(Mark 12:17 [cf. Rom. 13:6; 1Tim. 5:18]).
Infact, the whole Bible can be read as the drama of the divine ownerrelating to his human stewards. At creation, God charges Adam and Eve“to work ... and take care of” the garden(Gen. 2:15), thereby entrusting all creation to human care. Indisobedience they abuse their stewardship, as will their offspring.In the fall, humankind forfeits God’s benefits in paradise(Gen. 3); he disowns his unfaithful stewards. The rest of Scripturerelates how God redeems a people for himself, adopting thedisinherited back into his household. He begins by promising Abrahamthat his offspring, Israel, will possess a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:8),which will be a kind of new paradise (Exod. 3:8). The Israelitesconquer the territory, but over time they prove to be unfaithfulstewards. After breaking God’s covenant, they lose the land inexile.
Jesus’parable of the landowner in Matt. 21:33–44 is basically acapsule version of this grand biblical story. Both come to a climaxwhen God sends his Son, Jesus Christ. He comes to “buy back”his people from their sins as the one faithful servant (Mark 10:45),even unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Jesus pays for his elect’sadoption with his blood, so now believers partake in God’sownership over all things. “All things are yours, whether ...the world or life or death or the present or the future—all areyours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (1Cor.3:21–23).
Leisure time offers a respite from work, those essentialduties of life such as paid employment and maintaining a household,to pursue other activities. Such nonobligatory pursuits range fromentertainment to fine art, from peaceful relaxation to physicalactivity.
Fromthe beginning, humankind was intended to work (Gen. 1:28; 2:15), butGod also set apart one day per week for his creatures to share in hisdivine rest (Gen. 2:2–3; Exod. 20:8–11). This weekly restshould bring to mind God’s creation and the final rest in theage to come (Heb. 4:9–11). Although leisure time and Sabbathobservance are not identical, both are opportunities to give thanks,worship, and put hope in God. They also refresh and enrich earthlylife.
Indeed,every good thing is a gift from the Father (James 1:17), includingtime off from daily duties. How one uses leisure time is thus amatter of stewardship, much like one’s use of money and workingtime (cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Thus, although the Bible does notdiscuss playing sports or writing poetry, it does proclaim Christ asLord over all spheres of life. Therefore “whether you eat ordrink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”(1Cor. 10:31).
Retribution refers to “giving what is due,”usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theologicaldoctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term inEnglish translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×).Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral orderis built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov.26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight,meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not onlyon the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2Cor.9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1)life isnot overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2)human actions affect thefuture, (3)the world is morally uniform, and (4)humanrevenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom.12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands areintended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address ofretribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut.28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential(Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).
Thispoetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam andEve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge(Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9)(cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign Godacting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of hisintentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise ofYahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenantfellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensionsexist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—thisdoes not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4).In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justiceand reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev.22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understandsthe limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).
Whilethe notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept ofcorrespondence is helpful for understanding the concept ofretribution. God’s judgments reveal (1)a correspondencebetween act and effect, (2)accountability to known law, (3)adebt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4)punishment thatreenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divinewarrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve itfrom all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19;Deut. 7:10; 1Sam. 24:19; 2Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149;Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2Thess.1:5–10).
God’sreasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, whilehis purposes are essentially restorative and developmental.Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifiesthe world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance anddeliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retributiongives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged andunacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps.58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity,promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner ofthe ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.
The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.
Flower Imagery
Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).
Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.
As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).
The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1Pet. 1:24–25).
The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).
Flowers Named in the Bible
The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).
The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.
Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.
The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.
Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.
Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.
Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).
co*ckle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “co*ckle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.
Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).
Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.
Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).
Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).
Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).
Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1Kings 7:18–20).
Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.
Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).
The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.
Flower Imagery
Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).
Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.
As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).
The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1Pet. 1:24–25).
The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).
Flowers Named in the Bible
The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).
The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.
Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.
The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.
Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.
Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.
Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).
co*ckle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “co*ckle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.
Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).
Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.
Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).
Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).
Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).
Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1Kings 7:18–20).
Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.
Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
Many of the letters, or epistles, in the Bible includesalutations consisting of expressions of goodwill from the sender tothe recipient. Salutations can be found at the beginning and end ofthe NT Epistles. While the salutation itself was not the invention ofthe authors of the NT Epistles, the form has been adapted in thisliterature to express explicitly Christian theological content.
Thesimplest form of salutation found in the NT is simply “Greetings,”which appears in James 1:1, as well as in the letter sent fromJerusalem to Antioch (Acts 15:23) and the letter of Claudius Lysiasto Felix (Acts 23:26). See also the examples of secularcorrespondence in Ezra 4:17; 7:12; Dan. 4:1.
Mostof the letters bearing the name of Paul begin with the greeting“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7) or a slight variation thereof (1Cor.1:3; 2Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1Thess.1:1; 2Thess. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3). The salutation in Gal.1:3–5 is a theological expansion of Paul’s standardsalutation. The salutations in 1Tim. 1:2 and 2Tim. 1:2include “Grace, mercy, and peace.”
Thesalutation of the Petrine letters is “Grace and peace be yoursin abundance” (1Pet. 1:2; 2Pet. 1:2). Salutationsare also found in 2John 3; Jude 2; Rev. 1:4–5. Hebrews,1John, and 3John do not begin with salutations.
Ina number of cases, salutatory remarks function to close the letternear its end, often in connection with individual greetings. See Rom.16:20; 1Cor. 16:21–24; 2Cor. 13:14; Gal. 6:18; Eph.6:23–24; Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18; 1Thess. 5:28; 2Thess.3:16–18; 1Tim. 6:21; 2Tim. 4:22; Titus 3:15;Philem. 25; 1Pet. 5:14.
Second Peter is a model of the Christian approach to thosewho are tempted to follow another gospel.
Outline
I.Greetings (1:1–2)
II.Put God’s Grace to Work (1:3–11)
III.Remember the Basis for Your Faith (1:12–21)
IV.Reject False Teachers (2:1–22)
V.On This Basis, Look to the Future (3:1–18)
Authorshipand Date
Theauthor is identified as “Simeon” Peter, using the Hebrewspelling of the name (1:1 ESV, NRSV; cf. Acts 15:14). He is “aservant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1; cf. Rom. 1:1; Titus1:1; James 1:1; Jude 1) and an eyewitness of his transfiguration(1:16–18; cf. Mark 9:2). He speaks affectionately of Paul as acolleague (3:15). He bases his argument against false teachers on theScriptures and his own testimony as well as that of the othereyewitnesses (1:16; cf. 1Pet. 5:1) of Jesus’ work. Herefers (3:1) to an earlier letter that he wrote to the same people,probably a reference to 1Peter.
Anumber of second-century authorities report that Peter ministered inRome, on and off, for up to twenty-five years prior to his executionby Nero in AD 65. Here he speaks of his own imminent execution,recalling Jesus’ words to him (1:14; cf. John 21:19). He speaksof having taken steps to ensure that his testimony will be availableafter his death, which may be an allusion to Mark’s Gospel, aslater Christian writers tell us.
Towardthe end of the second century some doubted the authenticity of2Peter. A number of works had appeared in the second centuryclaiming to be by Peter. The early church was well aware of the useof forgeries written in the names of the apostles to spread falseteaching (even during their lifetimes [cf. 2Thess. 2:2]). Itappears that 2Peter was not as widely known or used as 1Peter,but the early church affirmed and defended the authenticity of bothletters.
Destination
Theletter gives no indication of its destination other than thereference to a former letter in 3:1. If this former letter was1Peter, then 2Peter would have been sent to the samecommunities (Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia [so1Pet. 1:1]). This possibility is supported by the similar useof traditions concerning Noah and Enoch in both letters. However,1Peter gives no indication that Peter had any personalacquaintance with his addressees, whereas 2Peter does (1:16).Given the extensive allusions to Jewish traditions not found in theOT, we can conclude that Peter was writing to Jewish Christians towhom these traditions had a strong appeal.
Relationshipto the Epistle of Jude
SecondPeter 2 and Jude 4–21 are extraordinarily similar not only incontent and wording but also in their order. Scholars have speculatedas to which author used the work of the other or whether both used acommon source. We have no evidence that would settle the question.What we do know is that both letters interact heavily with thetraditions associated with 1Enoch.
TheseEnochic traditions differ from the teachings of the Pharisees and theSadducees. They were accepted as authentic and authoritative at leastby the Qumran community/Essenes (cf. CD-A 6:1–6; Jub. 1.1–9;4.17–19). Whereas Jude (14–15) cites 1En. 1.9directly, 2Peter only speaks about these stories.
Accordingto the Enochic traditions, salvation was for ethnically pure Israel,observing rigorously the specifications for worship and lifestylelaid down in these pseudepigraphical revelations. While thistradition expected a day of judgment similar to that set forth in theScriptures, it differed with the Christian gospel in itsunderstanding of the origins of sin and evil (people are initiallyvictims, not perpetrators) and of the way of salvation (rigorouslykeeping the Enochic rules). The Son of Man (of Dan. 7:13–14) isEnoch (1En. 71), not Jesus. There is no place here for acrucified Messiah whose death would atone for sin, for theabandonment of OT food laws and sacrifices, or the acceptance ofuncircumcised Gentiles into the assembly.
SecondPeter and Jude deal in the strongest terms with false teachers whoprofess to base their teaching on fraudulent revelations (2Pet.1:16; Jude 1:8) and who deny Jesus as Lord. This tradition focusedheavily on the Zadokite priesthood and the need to restore a puretemple. Peter and Jude’s polemic makes extensive connectionsbetween false teaching and all manner of corruption and uncleannessthat would disqualify such a priesthood (2Pet. 2:2, 10, 13, 15,19, 22; cf. 1Pet. 2:1–10; Jude 8, 11–13, 16).
Thesimilarities between the two letters probably are the result of thetwo authors conferring together in some way. We know that Peter andhis family traveled on missionary work, as did the brothers of Jesus(1Cor. 9:5). We do not know where Jude was when either of theseletters was written. The urgency that provoked Jude’s letter isalso reflected in 2Peter. The church was facing physicalpersecution in Rome as well as these false teachers who sought tolead Jewish believers away from Jesus. Meanwhile, Roman control ofJudea was crumbling.
MainThemes
SecondPeter focuses first on the work of God in Christ, which saves thosewho believe in Jesus (1:3). This faith is based on the knowledge ofGod and of Jesus (1:2) and is a response to the gospel call. God hasgiven to the believer everything needed to live in a godly way, toendure, and to discern truth from error so as to die assured of nothaving been deceived (1:4).
Petergrounds that assurance in the Scriptures (1:19–21), in thetestimony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus (1:12–16), includinghimself, and in the writings of the apostle Paul, to whom Jesus hadgiven wisdom for this purpose (3:15–16). One develops certaintyin the faith not only by referring to these sources but also byputting the faith into practice (1:5, 10, 15). The faith then isrooted in history, not in “cleverly invented stories”(1:16). Consequently, Peter expresses his passion to see that hiseyewitness account will be accessible to the next generation(1:14–15).
Hespeaks plainly of “Scripture” as an identifiable body oftexts written at the instigation of the Holy Spirit (1:20–21)and places the writings of Paul on the same level (3:16). By this,Peter implies that his letter is to be received as carrying the sameauthority and usefulness.
Falseteachers are a permanent challenge to God’s people. Doctrineand behavior are products of each other (2:1–3).
Peteris particularly concerned that his readers not think that Jesus’delay in appearing is proof that the apostolic witnesses were wrong(3:3–4). Jesus has not returned because were he to do so, itwould end all opportunity for unbelievers to hear the gospel and besaved (3:9). God is gracious and long-suffering and is calling hispeople to reflect his character by giving people the opportunity tobe saved. His patience is salvation (3:15). The gospel mission, then,provides the second motivation for the believer to practice the faith(3:11–16) and not waver.
SecondPeter ends by challenging believers to constantly grow in theknowledge and grace of Christ (3:17–18).
The safety and endurance of a Christian’s salvation.Theologians over the centuries have debated whether salvation can belost, but several lines of argument taken from Scripture support theteaching that salvation by its very nature is eternal.
Electionand Grace
Passageson divine election reveal that those who come to faith do so notmerely out of personal choice, but ultimately because they have beenchosen by God (Eph. 1:4). God draws those whom he chooses, and theyrespond to his call (John 6:37, 44, 65). If genuine believers couldlose their salvation, it would imply that God’s purpose andplan in election had been ineffective, an idea that contradictsScripture (John 6:39).
Theapostle Paul maintains that salvation is bestowed by God as a gift ofhis grace (Rom. 3:24; 6:23; Eph. 1:7; 2:8–9). This free giftcannot be merited or earned. It is not granted or withheld on thebasis of a person’s moral character, no matter how noble orwicked, and it is never merited or forfeited through anything aperson does, no matter how good or evil. Rather, it is granted due tosomething that lies within the nature of God—his graciouscharacter, his purpose, and his free choice. Salvation endures due tothe same perfections in God that cannot change (Mal. 3:6; James1:17). Although salvation is bestowed as a matter of God’sgrace, faith is the means by which it is received (Rom. 3:21–25).Yet faith is not a work and is never said to earn God’s grace(Eph. 2:8). Good works are the evidence of a life that hasexperienced the grace of God.
Rebirthand Eternal Life
Scripturereveals that salvation is imparted through regeneration or rebirth.Jesus describes it as being “born again” (John 3:3, 7).Paul uses a related concept when he writes that we are saved “throughthe washing of rebirth” (Titus 3:5). Peter teaches essentiallythe same thing: “He has given us new birth” (1Pet.1:3). The life that is imparted is “eternal” (John 3:16;10:28; 17:2; Rom. 6:23). Paul maintains that God’s gifts andcall are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). Thus, there is no notion in theScriptures that a regenerated follower of Christ ever becomesunregenerate, nor does eternal life ever morph into somethingtemporal. In praying to the Father, Jesus notes that believers are agift from the Father to the Son, and that none of them would be lost(John 17:2, 12). Judas Iscariot’s perdition clearly was part ofGod’s sovereign plan (John 17:12; Acts 1:16).
Protectionof the Believer
TheHoly Spirit is said to seal or be the seal of believers. Paul writes,“When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, thepromised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). This refers to the divineownership and protection granted to the believer, who has been given“the Spirit as a deposit,” guaranteeing that God willfinish the work that he began (2Cor. 5:5; Phil. 1:6). Jesustaught the same truth regarding the believer’s security: “Noone will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them tome, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’shand” (John 10:28–29). Peter maintained this sameconfidence when he wrote that the believer is shielded through faith“by God’s power” (1Pet. 1:5). One of thestrongest arguments for the security of the believer is found in Rom.8:38–39: “Neither death nor life, neither angels nordemons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neitherheight nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able toseparate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”Something greater than God would be needed to wrestle salvation fromthose to whom he has granted it.
Notall Christians believe that the Bible teaches eternal security,citing passages that seem to imply that a saved individual can againbecome lost and suffer eternal judgment, most likely referring to thesevere yet temporal discipline of God directed toward his erringchildren or toward those who depart from the faith because they weremerely professing believers (Matt. 13:20–21, 24–30; John15:6; 1Cor. 11:30–32; 2Cor. 11:13–15; 2Tim.4:10, 14; Heb. 6:4–9; 10:26–31; 2Pet. 2:1, 22;1John 2:19; 5:16; 2John 9; Rev. 2:5, 16). But those whodefend the doctrine believe these passages do not contradict thisteaching; they merely reveal that God purposes to accomplish thiswork with the cooperation of the believer (1John 5:4; Rev. 2:7,11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).
Thewriter to the Hebrews, who lays down some of the most severe warningsin the NT, nevertheless maintains that God is “able for alltime to save,” and that his readers did not belong to those who“shrink back and so are lost” (Heb. 7:25; 10:39 NRSV).Jude asserts that God is able to present the believer “withoutfault” before his presence (Jude 24). Essentially, this is whatJesus says in John 10:28–29: “They shall never perish”(cf. 17:12). The loss of one sheep would impugn the power andcharacter of God, who not only saves by grace but also keeps us byhis grace and in his grace (Rom. 5:2).
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.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
OldTestament
Phoeniciansand Philistines. Asa people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked andtimber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites ofbiblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring orshipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises onalliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenicianstates to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and hadaccess to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity fortheir seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily betweenSyria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout theMediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Anotherseagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose baseof power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. TheBible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the SeaPeoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in thetwelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
Theperennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precludedjoint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and thePhoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritimeactivities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of thePhilistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remainedconfined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attemptto take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. Whenthey did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert amilitary and political presence among the agrarian Israelites andJudahites rather than to establish permanent settlements andPhilistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at MedinetHabu (in the mortuary temple of RamessesIII) depict a navalbattle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs includepictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israeliteseafaring.One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes theDanites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlappedwith the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlappedsubstantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked inthe port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. Inanother passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It isnoteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughlybetween Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance ofnatural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificialharbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of sucha project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet ofbreakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported fromItaly—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors inthis region.
Solomon’sfleet.The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign ofSolomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, whichis near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1Kings9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir(1Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, towhich a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. Thestory confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians inthe area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew thesea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”(1Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have beenimported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1Kings 9:11). Even atthe height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embarkon sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
Thesuccess of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only onwarm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial controlof the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. Thisfavorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout thebiblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on theseas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel wasan essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and withit to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. ThePhoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,could never independently control the long overland route fromPhoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory ofIsrael and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerfulIsraelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiramsent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen andsupplies for the construction of the temple (1Kings 5:10–12).Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted torepeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber(1Kings 22:48–49; 2Chron. 20:35–37).According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they couldset sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of thestory disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political andeconomic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
Bythis time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, withthe northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politicallycloser to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, marriedJezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal(1Kings 16:31). According to 1Kings, King Ahaziah ofIsrael (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat bysending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomonin the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northerndominance. According to 2Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat didcooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that theships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat fortoo close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In1Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’sventure there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overlandroute between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success ofany voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
Howeverthe contradiction between 1Kings and 2Chroniclesregarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions ofthe story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commandedthe interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, andits successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of allthree.
Shipsof Tarshish.Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon andJehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1Kings10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associatedwith the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,lead, tin, gold, and silver (1Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of theircargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekielobserves, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for yourwares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Youroarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
Inthe Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of theeastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples ofthe Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that theships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeasternTurkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony ofTartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This locationfigures in the interpretation of the identification of thedestination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he wereavoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head towardSpain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus inCilicia.
Inaddition to these two geographical options, some have attempted toexplain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as derivingfrom the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the manyreferences to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used totransport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar hasproposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,meaning “oar.”
Descriptionsof ships and seafaring.Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. Thepicture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built andmanned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber forthe construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, amongother places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen(v.7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were fromthe Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list alarge number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety ofcargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and theIsraelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheatfrom Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”(v.17)—thus filling out the picture of what theIsraelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury itemsimported by their country from elsewhere.
In1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician shipsthat had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, eachmeasuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wineand were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies inthe western Mediterranean.
Shipsand sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded aship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on theMediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features ofancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Notonly the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumablynon-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing ofa god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the samestrategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits ofancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods whocontrolled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the portcities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from anIsraelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on thesea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God ofIsrael, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a stormand the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safehaven.
Noah’sArk
Accordingto the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feetwide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, theship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as havingsix decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozencubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (arough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships aredescribed as providing space for the builder’s family and everyliving creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but itsdimensions are not given.
Becauseof the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to drawconclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historicalantiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblicaltext, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship inhistory, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore andaft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with earlytwentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant lengthrendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. Thelargest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the GreekSyracusia(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered inmodern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Plinythe Elder; and PtolemyIV’s Tessarakonteres (third centuryBC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This lastship was not designed for cruising in open water.
NewTestament
Fishingin the Sea of Galilee. Severalof Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing andtraveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both fromboats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermenon the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto thebeach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enoughto transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boatscould be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort torowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesusstood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen mileslong. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea toavoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-firstcentury AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had beenscuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “JesusBoat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in lengthand has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of woodwere used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or hisdisciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and itprovides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
Asecond source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT isthe account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the caseof Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paullearned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, herecalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and aday in the open sea” (2Cor. 11:25).
Paul’sjourneys.A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives someidea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in theeastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleuciain Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Afterjourneying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where heembarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing againthrough the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but ratherwith a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustratingthat although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, theoverland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul wouldrepeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travelwas fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternativeland route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It isduring the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts ofPaul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed theshort distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the islandof Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast fromBerea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call notmentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of seatravel so far mentioned.
3.The third missionary journey once more began with a long overlandtrip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had manyassociates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while hiscompanions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, hesailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south ofCyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship againhugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Pauldisembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate thevariety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailingin deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there werereasons to make frequent stops.
4.Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to atrial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. Fromthe account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at seain the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and itcarried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiersand prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’sfriend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’sowner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and tooksoundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’scourse could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to thelee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, butthe only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
Whenextended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option wassimply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in aharbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learnsomething of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many ofwhich are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hullof the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), thelifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchorswere deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncomingwaves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargoand gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see alsothe protective emblems in 28:11).
Whenall other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on asandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage tothe boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, thedecision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of theship (27:41).
Metaphorsand illustrations.Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. Jameslikens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a greatship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of theunwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.4:14). In 1Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience islikened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’sfaithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
Since the early apologists’ first attempts to defendthe Christian faith against contemporary Greco-Roman philosophers,explanations of God’s sovereignty have found support fromPlatonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian categories. This unfortunate“marriage” pushed theologians to identify God’spower in static and absolute categories that explained God as unmovedand impassible. God’s sovereign will must be perfect and cannotbe affected by the world or by human suffering. In his perfection,God is necessarily apatheia (Aristotle), beyond joy or sorrow(Plato). This notion led medieval and Reformation theologians toassert that Jesus suffered in his human nature, but not in his divinenature. To protect God’s integrity (incapability ofcorruption), the biblical emphasis on God’s passionateinvolvement with his creation and people (e.g., Isa. 34:2; Zeph.3:17) was squelched.
Christianspeculation on God’s sovereignty followed the Neoplatonicprinciple of plenitude, in which the created universe is little morethan the divine being’s necessary overflow of temporaldiversity. God’s perfection requires the unlimitedactualization of all possibilities. For Augustine, this meant thatall human experience is foreclosed in God’s eternity; forAnselm, it gave an ontological argument for God’s existence;for Abelard, it meant that God cannot do or leave undone anythingother than what he has done; for Beza (Calvinism), doublepredestination was a given; for Schleiermacher, humanself-consciousness had its roots in the divine being; for Tillich, a“God above God” was the ground of all being; and we couldadd many others. “Sovereignty,” in these delineations,expresses the necessary manifestation of God’s perfection andabsolute power.
Thebiblical language of sovereignty does not parallel such logic.Broadly speaking, the Bible describes sovereignty as God’sdivine authority to rule his creation in general and Israel inparticular. He is the Lord of all creation and the King of Israel. Heis almighty (sovereign) to accomplish his purpose, which is torestore his kingdom on earth through Christ (1Tim. 6:14–15),to whom he now has given all authority (Matt. 28:18). Rather than analoof divinity of perfection, God is presented in the Bible asintensely personal and superbly engaged in the affairs of hiscreation. He remains outside his creation as its supreme, infiniteCreator (transcendence), while allowing his love to instruct both hisjustice and his power (immanence). He creates not because thenecessity of his perfection requires it but rather out of sovereignfreedom and love. He is both protective of his position as Lord ofcreation and concerned for his people’s welfare (Deut.6:13–19). His sovereignty displays his moral character (Exod.15:11–18) while demanding reciprocal love and relationalobedience from his people.
Assovereign, God has power and rule that are above all other powers andrulers (Pss. 22:28; 103:19; Dan. 5:21). His providential care for allcreation exhibits his loving kingship and confirms his essentialgoodness. God’s sovereignty affirms that human life has meaningand purpose; he does not leave us alone to create our own happiness,nor are we subject to whatever misery presses upon us (1Chron.29:11). Rather than an indivisible attribute, God’s power issubject to his control and expresses itself relationally. This samerelationality lies behind the biblical understanding of God’swill and unchangeable character (James 1:17; cf. Ps. 102:25–27;Isa. 40:8). As a comparison of 1Sam. 15:11 with 15:29 shows,God’s sovereignty does not militate against his freedom tochange his mind. Rather, God remains unchangeably faithful and trueto his character even when humans prove faithless and false (2Tim.2:13).
Thisrelational quality of God’s sovereignty is rooted in histriunity. His existence is coexistence as Father, Son, and HolySpirit. This makes love the distinctive mark of his sovereignty. Thedoctrine of the Trinity safeguards against metaphysicalunderstandings of God that make light of his self-revelation inChrist. Opposite the self-expanding god of philosophicalspeculations, the biblical God manifests his sovereignty through theself-limiting and self-denying Christ (Phil. 2:5–11), whor*veals God’s absolute power as the servant of his absolutelove.
The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OTsuffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev.26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25;cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by whichblessing comes to humanity.
TheBible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17;6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18;1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assumethat he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4,20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in thefinal chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friendsfor their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writermakes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness.Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume thatblindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesusrejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3,6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
Theprayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal andthirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within thelaments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, makerequests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Whyhave you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints againstGod (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“Youhave made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemiesmock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm andnot a man” [22:6]).
TheNT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in theOT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3;26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps.22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presentedas the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation,God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8;Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the pricefor sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set freefrom sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18).(3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom.8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet.2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13),and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to sufferas his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provideshope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil.3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev.21:4).
Thereare many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19;16:22–24; 18:17; 2Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb.10:32; 1Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’splan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1Thess. 3:2–4) and ispart of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22;Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1Pet. 2:21; 4:12).
TheNT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it hasbecome part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering ofbelievers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel(Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11;6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16;2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor.1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb.10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God(Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), andthe crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of thedevelopment toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor.4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Sufferingis associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal(2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness,sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10);comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8);blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor.4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christiansuffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character andhope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity andcompleteness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentarywhen compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom.8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7;4:12–13).
Throughoutthe Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OTlaw provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged,and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10,35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesusregularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3;19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom.12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom.12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visitprisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
Palestine has arid and wet Mediterranean climate zones and asteppe zone. Its two seasons are dry/summer and wet/winter (cf. Gen.8:22). In summer the weather is remarkably stable, and the incomingair from the northwest typically is rather arid. With no cloud covermost days, there is, on average, zero rainfall from June throughSeptember—the background for the miracle of 1Sam.12:16–18 (cf. Prov. 26:1).
Inwinter the weather is variable, with rains and thunderstorms arrivingfrom the Mediterranean Sea, generally from the southwest. The rainsusually fall in concentrated amounts over a few hours. Rainfalldiminishes overall from north to south and west to east, thoughvarying elevations create deviations from the overall pattern. Annualrainfall varies significantly (from twelve to forty inches), fallingalmost entirely between November and April. Dew is a significantsource of water in the region, especially in summer, sometimesconstituting 25percent of the annual moisture.
Table11. Average Low–High Temperatures (°F)
1.Tel Aviv (sea level)
January– 34-74
Februrary– 36-80
March– 37-87
April– 42-95
May– 47-99
June– 55-97
July– 60-92
August– 62-91
September– 59-92
October– 50-92
November– 43-87
December– 36-79
II.Jerusalem (2,500 ft.)
January– 39-53
February– 40-56
March– 43-61
April– 49-70
May– 54-77
June– 59-82
July– 63-84
August– 63-84
September– 61-82
October– 57-77
November– 49-66
December– 42-57
III.Tiberias (-650 ft.)
January– 45-61
February– 48-66
March– 54-73
April– 55-77
May– 59-86
June– 68-93
July– 70-95
August– 72-97
September– 68-93
October– 61-88
November– 55-75
December– 50-68
IV.Jericho (-840 ft.)
January– 49-65
February– 49-64
March– 56-73
April– 62-82
May– 68-90
June– 74-98
July– 80-100
August– 80-100
September– 74-95
October– 70-89
November– 64-81
December– 54-69
Apartfrom thunderstorms early in the rainy season, such as occur on theSea of Galilee (cf. Luke 8:23), a high-pressure zone can form overIraq during the wet season, forcing hot, dusty, and sometimesprolonged east winds into Palestine; these are called qadim in theBible (Exod. 10:13; Ps. 48:7; Jon. 4:8). In the transitional periodsbetween the two seasons, the sirocco (Arab. hamsin), may occur, inwhich an east wind from the Arabian desert sweeps up from the southand across Palestine toward a low-pressure zone over Egypt or Libya,causing humidity to drop as low as 10percent and thetemperature to rise as much as 22°F. This can last days or weeks,with sweltering effects (cf. Ezek. 17:10; Hos. 13:15; Luke 12:55).Such storms are often used as a backdrop to highlight the weaknessand transience of earthly existence (Isa. 27:8; Hos. 12:1; James1:11).
Whilevarious weather conditions are described throughout the Bible (rain,snow, storms, lightning, thunder, wind, etc.), Jesus refersspecifically to weather prediction in Matt. 16:2–3, where heaccuses the Pharisees of being able to predict the weather but notable to discern the signs of the times.
Showing
1
to
50
of359
results
1. The Temptations
Illustration
Glenn E. Ludwig
Maybe we need to rethink sin. Maybe we need to think of sin in broader categories than just "bad things done" or "good things left undone." Maybe the most uncomplicated definition of sin we could give would be our inclination to take the easy way out.
Our gospel text for today offers a good way to assess our new definition. The devil offers Jesus temptations which seem, on the surface, harmless enough. They are certainly not temptations to do evil. The devil is just encouraging Jesus to take the easy road in order to show the world that he really is the Son of God. Look, again, at these "harmless" temptations.
"Command this stone to become a loaf of bread." Temptation number one. Not a bad idea, really. Think about it. A lot of good could come from such a move. Changing stones to bread could move the world in a giant leap toward feeding the hungry masses. Thousands of lives could be saved. Isn't that worth some consideration? Think of the children we see with distended bellies. Think of the mothers who are too weak to feed their own children. Bread-making from stones could feed the world. Isn't God concerned with the hungry?
Or what about that second temptation? "Worship me," says the devil, "and to you I will give all authority over all earthly kingdoms."
Now, don't dismiss this one too quickly, either. There are some real possibilities here. Think about what it would mean if Jesus really were in charge around here. If Jesus had control, there would be no need for nuclear weapons of destruction. Wealth and resources would be shared more equitably. We wouldn't need a United Nations Peace Keeping Force to ensure the fair sharing of food supplies. It would be done, by Jesus, who had the power to make it happen. It's a plan that deserves some thought.
And what about that third temptation? "Jesus, throw yourself down from here" and let God perform a dramatic rescue. Again, think of the consequences. If Jesus did this, it would show that God can be manipulated to do what we want and what we need. It would show us once and for all that he really is here for us. And think of the consequences for Jesus' following.
Do you see the point of these three examples? The temptations were so subtle. And we could easily rationalize the outcomes! These "harmless" temptations could lead to Jesus being King of the World immediately and easily -- no more preaching to crowds on hillsides or by lakes, no more healing all those sick bodies, no more teaching to those who seem not to understand, and, most important of all, no cross to bear. It would have been the easy way out and it would have lead away from Calvary and death – but it also would have led away from Easter morning, and an empty tomb, and the death of death and sin, and the end of that real kingdom Jesus tried so desperately to explain to his followers.
The temptation of Jesus was to choose another way other than the cross. Maybe ... maybe that is our temptation too.
2. Temptations of Daily People
Illustration
Douglas R. A. Hare
This passage (4:1—11) is often appointed by lectionaries for the first Sunday of Lent. The presumption is that the narrative is of direct relevance for Christians as they enter a period of penitence. Ordinary Christians are unlikely to perceive it so, and with good cause. The story does not correspond with our experience; we do not hold conversations with a visible devil, nor are we whisked from place to place as Jesus is in the story. Moreover, the temptations that Jesus faces are peculiar to him; they seem very remote from those we face day by day. This passage may in fact prompt some to doubt the validity of Hebrews 4:15: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." What did Jesus know of the temptations that are faced daily by the recovering alcoholic and substance abuser? the lonely divorcee? the struggling business owner? the teenager who covets peer acceptance above all?
There is, however, a common denominator that links all of these with the temptation as ascribed to Jesus. The basic, underlying temptation that Jesus shared with us is the temptation to treat God as less than God. We may not be tempted to turn stones into bread (we are more apt to turn butter into guns, but we are constantly tempted to mistrust God's readiness to empower us to face our trials. None of us is likely to put God to the test by leaping from a cliff, but we are frequently tempted to question God's helpfulness when things go awry; we forget the sure promise, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (II Corinthians 12:9). Pagan idolatry is no more a temptation for us than it was for Jesus, but compromise with the ways of the world is a continuing seduction. It is indeed difficult for us to worship and serve God only. We should be continually grateful that we have a great high priest who, tempted as we are, was able to resist all such temptations by laying hold of Scripture and firmly acknowledging that only God is God.
3. Great Reversals
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
The theme of poverty, riches, possessions and the realm of God is a constant theme of Luke. It begins with Mary's song. Mary had an encounter with an angel. "You will bear a son and call his name Jesus," the angel announced. "Let it be with me according to your word," said Mary. Elizabeth, Mary's relative, blessed Mary for her trust that God's word of promise would be fulfilled. And then Mary sang a song. Mary's song may just well be the central song of Luke's entire gospel. Luke tells many stories in his gospel that are best understood as comments on her song!
Mary's song sings of a God of great reversals. This God has high regard for a lowly maiden. This God scatters the proud and puts down the mighty from their thrones. The high are made low and the low are exalted. This God, furthermore, fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich away empty-handed. That's the kind of God that Mary sings about it. A God of great reversals. A God who makes the rich poor and the poor rich.
Jesus sings a similar song in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth. During the worship service that day Jesus was given the scroll of Isaiah that he might read it to the congregation. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," Jesus read, "because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). Isaiah had prophesied that God would send a spirit-filled servant who would bring a great reversal to human affairs. After he had finished reading from the Isaiah scroll, Jesus gave it to the attendant and sat down. Every eye in the synagogue was fixed upon him. Jesus spoke. "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," he said. He was the spirit-filled servant of whom Isaiah had prophesied. He was the one who would bring great reversals to life in fulfillment of Mary's song. He was the one who brought good news to the poor.
"Blessed are you poor." We should not be surprised at these words of Jesus to his disciples. In Luke 6:20-26 Jesus also speaks of great reversals. The poor will be blessed. The hungry will be satisfied. The weeping ones shall laugh. Those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake will rejoice. Reversals work the other way as well. The weak of the earth will be blessed but the mighty of the earth shall be filled with woe. Woe to the rich. Woe to those who are full now. Woe to those who laugh now. Woe to those of whom the world now speaks well.
John the Baptist watched Jesus' ministry from afar. John wondered about Jesus. Was he really the promised Messiah? John sent some of his disciples to Jesus with just this question. "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?" John's disciples asked Jesus on John's behalf (Luke 7:21). Jesus had an answer for John. "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard," he instructs John's disciples, "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" (Luke 7:22). The "great reversals" have begun. That's Jesus' word to John.
Today's story from Luke is a story in this lineage. A great reversal takes place. The rich man is sent away empty. The poor hear good news!"
4. O, Lord Give Me a Penny
Illustration
Staff
A man asked God, "What does a billion dollars mean to you who are all powerful?"
"Hardly a penny." God said.
Then the man asked God , "And what are a thousand centuries to you?" God answered "Hardly a second!!"
Thinking he had God backed into a corner, the man then said, "Then if that's the case, O, Lord give me a penny !!"
God replied, "Sure, just give me a minute."
Wisdom isn't outsmarting God, wisdom is living in and with God. Wisdom is being in Christ and surrounded by Christ. Wisdom is eating and drinking from the feast which God has prepared for us.
5. DNA and SIN
Illustration
George Murphy
Augustine thought that original sin was transmitted to the child through the sexual act, but the idea that it has such a genetic character is difficult for us to make sense of today. (It also lacks scriptural basis, unless one forces Psalm 51:6.) It may be more helpful to use an ecological metaphor. We cannot fully understand living organisms without their environment, and we cannot fully understand a human being except as part of the whole human community. This is true even -- or perhaps especially -- before birth. And the problem is that we are conceived and born in a human environment in which sin is unavoidable. We participate from the start in an ecology of sin.
What about the idea that death was caused by the first sin? The existence of sin, of separation from God, casts a different light on death, including death that took place before there was sin. Now it is seen as something more than, something worse than, the stopping of biological machinery. The meaning of death has been changed by sin.
6. Undistracted and Committed
Illustration
Tim Zingale
There's a legend of a king who had one beautiful daughter. She had many offers of marriage, but she couldn't make up her mind. A romantic girl, she wanted a man who would love her more than he loved anything else.
Finally, she devised a way to test the love of her suitors. An announcement was made and sent throughout the kingdom that on a certain day, there would be a race. The winner of the race would marry the princess. The race was open to every man in the kingdom, regardless of his position. All that was required was that the man had to profess to love the princess more than he loved anything else.
On the chosen day, men rich and poor gathered for the race. Each professed wholehearted love for the princess. They gathered at the starting line, prepared to run the course of many miles that had been marked for the race. Each man was told that the princess waited at the finish line. Whoever reached her first could take her as his bride.
Just before the race was to begin, an announcement was made. The king, they were reminded, was a wealthy man with treasures gathered from all over the world. Not wanting any man to run in vain, it was announced, the king had liberally scattered some of his finest treasures along the course. Each runner was welcome to take as many as he liked.
The race was begun. Almost immediately, the runners began to come across great gems and bags of gold. There were necklaces and pendants and jewel encrusted cups and swords and knives. One by one, the runners, princes and paupers alike, turned aside to fill their pockets and carry off what treasures they could. Blinded by the immediate promise of wealth, they forgot the princess and all their professions of love.
All except one! He pressed on, ignoring what to him were trinkets when compared to incomparable beauty of the princess and the prospect of gaining her hand in marriage, finally crossing the finish line.
That is the way temptation works. It places things in our path meant to blind our eyes to the kind of life God wants us to live.
With God’s grace we can learn to avoid temptation, we can learn to walk away from those things that would be gods in our life. With God’s grace, we can keep our focus on Him and the love we have for Him. With God’s grace, we can turn to loving our neighbor. We can learn to love others instead of loving ourselves.
7. Temptation vs. Trial
Illustration
Fairbain
What is temptation? Seduction to evil, solicitation to wrong. It stands distinguished from trial thus: trial tests, seeks to discover the man's moral qualities or character; but temptation persuades to evil, deludes, that it may ruin. The one means to undeceive, the other to deceive. The one aims at the man's good, making him conscious of his true moral self; but the other at his evil, leading him more or less unconsciously into sin. God tries; Satan tempts.
8. Who Is Jesus?
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Now, more than ever, we need to face the question, "Who is the real Jesus?" Is the Christ of faith the Jesus of history? What is the truth about Jesus? What can we believe? We turn to the Apostles' Creed which has given the church's answer for 2,000 years.
Different Positions
It is not strange that the most popular question of our time is, "Who is Jesus?" Was this question not answered in Matthew 16:16 when Peter said to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"? In Jesus' day, too, there were different opinions about Jesus. When on a retreat with his disciples, he asked them what people were saying about him. The public was divided: Jesus was considered to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What more of an answer do we need than the answer of Peter? Jesus accepted his answer as the truth, for he said, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Yet, after twenty centuries, we do not believe what Peter said about the identity of Jesus. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Jesus is the Son of God." A recent report from Germany indicated that only one out of every four believe in Jesus Christ. Throughout Christian history down to the present, there are different views of Jesus. Now let us look at some of them.
1. The All-Human Jesus
Human
According to this position, Jesus is 100 percent human. It was held as early as the first centuries of Christianity by the Ebionites. They denied that Jesus was divine. He was only a teacher, prophet, miracle-man, and one with an outstanding character. But he was not divine, the Son of God. Today this view is held by many, including atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, and other non-Christian religions.
2. The All-Divine Jesus
Divine
Opposite the Ebionites, Docetists held that Jesus was entirely divine. He was not at all human. This view was originally taught by Eutychus, a monk in a monastery near Constantinople. In the fourth century, Appolonarius, bishop of Laodicea, popularized the teaching. It was known as Docetism, from the Latin word docere meaning "to seem." It just seemed that Jesus was human. It was based on the idea that the physical and material were inherently evil. The human body therefore was sinful. Jesus therefore was not human, for God could not be identified with sin. Docetists held that Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by the divine. This denied the Incarnation, the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh."
3. The Half And Half Jesus
Human/Divine
Nestorians took the view that Jesus was half human and half divine. It was taught by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in the fifth century. To this day it is a very popular understanding of Jesus. When we see Jesus hungry, thirsty, and tired, we say it was because he was human. When he struggles in prayer and on the cross cries out, "My God, why ...?" we see the human Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus is God when he walks on water, feeds 5,000, raises the dead, heals lepers, and rises from the grave. The problem with this view is that we have a divided Jesus -- two persons in one body.
4. The Adopted Jesus
Divine
Human
This is known as adoptionism. According to this position, Jesus came into the world as a human. Because of his moral excellence, his perfect obedience to God, his wisdom, his compassion for people, and his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross, the Father adopted him as his son at his baptism. This adoption was confirmed by the resurrection and the ascension. Jesus then became a deified man.
5. The Both And Jesus
Human & Divine
The above different positions concerning Jesus caused great concern, for the gospel was at stake. If Jesus were only human, then he was just a martyr on the cross and not the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. If he were only human, the resurrection was a fairy tale. His promises of forgiveness and eternal life were meaningless. His claims to know God and to be one with God would then be the words of a religious fanatic who was deluded into thinking he was the Son of God.
On the other hand, if Jesus were only divine and not human, humanity would be the loser. Because he was human, he became one of us. As a human, he fulfilled the law for us. Through his humanity we could see the nature of God. Above all, he became sin for us so that sin, through him, could go out of the world. As a human Jesus knows our human condition. Like all of us he was tempted and he showed that by the power of God we can overcome temptation to sin.
Consequently, the church had to take a stand on the question of Jesus. Is he only human, only divine, or half and half? In 451 A.D. the church held a council at Chalcedon to decide the issue. The church decided that it was not a matter of Jesus being fully God or fully human, or half and half, but it was a matter of both, both fully human and fully divine. To this day the church holds to this truth stated at Chalcedon:
We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, or a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father with respect to the Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect of the manhood, like us in everything but sin ...
This is to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man. These two natures are blended into one integrated personality. He is not a split personality, nor does he suffer from schizophrenia. It is like a blender in your kitchen. Suppose you put apples, peaches, and pears in it and pushed the "on" button for a minute. Now what do you have -- apples, peaches, and pears? Yes, you do, but can you tell which is which? They have become one fruit, one substance. Also, it is like hom*ogenized milk. When the raw milk comes from the farm, a dairy runs it through a hom*ogenizer. As the milk runs through the machine, pistons compact the milk so that the cream and skim milk are made one. As a result you cannot take cream off the milk. In the same way, the human and divine natures of Jesus are compacted into one integrated person.
This means that the Father and the Son are one. When Jesus prays, God also prays. When the human Jesus suffers and dies on a cross, God is in Jesus enduring the cross. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). When the human Jesus speaks, it is also God who speaks. When Jesus weeps, God weeps. This truth makes us realize the seriousness of the cross. It was not only a human on the cross, but God was there in Jesus. Good Friday is the day God died in Jesus. Indeed, the murderers did not know what they were doing; they did not know they were killing God! As the spiritual says, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble."
9. It Isn't Fair! - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
One day a rich young ruler came enthusiastically running up to Jesus and asked: "What must I do to be saved?" Jesus answered: Keep the law. "This I have done from my youth up," came the reply. Yet one thing do you lack said Jesus. Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor. Then come follow me. We are told that the young man walked away sorrowfully, for he had great wealth. Concluded the Master: It will be hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
The disciples had been watching the dynamics of this happening and they were quite disturbed. Jewish tradition had always taught that God had especially blessed rich men and that is why he was rich. In their way of thinking, if a wealthy man could not receive salvation, then how could a poor man have any hope? They asked of Jesus: who then can be saved?
It reminds me of the movie Fiddler on the Roof. The poor Jewish milkman who lives in early 1900 Russia sings what he would do "if I were a rich man." His wife reminds him: money is a curse. He immediately shouts up to heaven: curse me God, curse me. Jesus has just turned away a wealthy man, and in the Jewish way of thinking it doesn't make any sense. In fact, I am not sure how many Methodist preachers would have the courage to do it. My entire ministry I have been waiting for a sugar daddy to come along.
But it was Simon Peter who drew the question even more clearly into focus for us. He asked what is on the mind of every one of us, only we are too sophisticated to ask it and too self-righteous to admit that we even think it. Peter didn't have any problem with that. He simply laid his cards out on the table. He said, "Lord, we have given up everything, riches and all, to follow you." What then shall we have?" In others words, what's in this for us Lord. How do we stand to profit? Where's the payoff?
In response to Peter's question, Jesus told a story. It was the harvest time of the year. At 7 A. M. a wealthy landowner went to the Town Square to hire laborers. In this story of hiring workers we learn:
- The person who comes late is just as important as the one who comes early.
- We really do not comprehend the nature of God's unmerited grace.
- If there is any special payoff for being selected early to labor in the Lord's field, it is simply the inner satisfaction that we receive from being in God's employ.
10. It Is Your Choice
Illustration
Robert Bachelder
In Huxley's Brave New World, Savage is contending with Mustapha Mond, the world controller. Savage's sensibility has been shaped by the Bible and Shakespeare, readings no longer allowed to be read. He complains to Mond about the antiseptic quality of life in the new society. The controller says to him: "We prefer to do things comfortably." Savage rejoins: "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
Many people think of God as a kind of cosmic Mustapha Mond or world controller. They have in mind a certain picture of God. It is one which most of us share in some measure, and one to which much of Holy Scripture points. This is the God who calls the worlds into being. The almighty God who, in the words of a great hymn, "alone can create and alone can destroy." The God who, in the words of Paul, "accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will." The God who, as the popular song goes, "has the whole world in his hands." This is the God who on Easter morning brought life out of death; the God who is in control of our destiny and whose will is invincible.
But we must permit this picture of God to be qualified and enlarged by another. There is another picture of God which reveals that his preferences are like those of Savage himself, a picture which suggests that God does not want easy comfort for his creatures, but prefers freedom, goodness, and sin. This picture is drawn, for example, in the Revelation of St. John with his vision of the Christ who says: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice, I will come into him." The accent here is not on God's power but on human freedom, freedom to accept or reject God, to choose goodness or sin. It is an accent we find also near the beginning of Scripture, in Deuteronomy, where we read:
"I am setting before you this day the ways of life and death." Life or death, happiness or misery it's your choice.
11. THE ONLY WAY OUT
Illustration
John H. Krahn
You are because I am. I was there from the beginning. My Father, God, and I fashioned the world that you enjoy. We hung the stars in the sky, scooped out the lakes, formed the mountains. But our genius was no more evident than when we made you. You are so magnificent. Consider yourself - your ability to think and reason. Do you realize how special you are? We had such a great thing going in the garden.
Unfortunately, the devil talked your forebears into trying to be like God, and they both fell for it. My Father and I had no choice but to show them the exit from Eden. Because of their sin, we had to face the decision whether or not to save what we created or to destroy it all. Save it, we decided. Later, in response to a promise made to your father Abraham, I, the son of God, was implanted by the Holy Spirit in a young virgin’s womb. They called me Jesus, for I had come to save you and all humankind from the consequences of your sins.
The plan of salvation was not complicated, although it was generous perhaps to a fault. You had sinned and continue to sin. It is your nature from the time of the Fall. Therefore, you cannot save yourself. Although some of you sin less than others, none of you is perfect. My Father demands perfection - he will not stand for any imperfection in eternity. Fortunately for you, my Father is also compassionate, and his love goes beyond human love. He wanted to reclaim you as his own, therefore, he decided to be inflicted with suffering and death. To accomplish this, he sent me - part of himself - to become a person like you and to receive punishment and death in your place.
Some of you only see me as an Alka Seltzer for an occasional headache, rather than a Savior for a whole new life. You call upon me and my Father for help only when all else seems to fail. Voices we haven’t heard in years make their way heavenward in dying breaths. Others make a puzzle out of our plan for your salvation. You continue to believe that you must add some of your goodness and righteousness (which is really in short supply by heaven’s standards) to my sacrificial death on the cross. Friends, I paid the price - one hundred percent at Calvary.
Can you imagine how I feel as your God, having humbled myself by becoming a human being, giving up heaven for a stinking stable, being misunderstood, mocked, tortured, spit upon, and hung, all because of you and your wretched sinfulness ... and then to have you believe that this was not enough. To have you, in your pride, believe that some goodness of yours would need to be added in order for the Father to receive you into heaven angers and disappoints me. You can do nothing to save yourself; I did it all because I love you. Please get it into your head, once and for all, I am your only way out of the pits of hell. As I said while I was with you on earth, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me!" May the Holy Spirit convince your hearts of my love, and may you understand that believing in me is the only way to be saved; sufficient in itself, needing absolutely no human works, no false pride, no human righteousness, nothing ... nothing ... nothing at all to be added to it. I died to purchase a place for you in heaven which I offer to you as a gift which you must receive totally and exclusively by faith.
12. IN DOUBT? FAITH IT!
Illustration
John H. Krahn
When I was in the hospital, I received many cards. Among them was one that had an actual mustard seed in a little container pasted on the front of it along with the words, "For if you had faith even as small as a tiny mustard seed you could say to this mountain, ‘Move!’ and it would go away. Nothing would be impossible." A mustard seed is really no big deal. But from this small seed grows a very large plant in a very short period of time.
Using a tiny mustard seed, Jesus suggests a very remarkable thing. He says that if our faith is only as large as this very small seed, we can do great things, as great as moving a mountain from one location to another. In fact, he says, "Nothing would be impossible for us." As Jesus talks to us about a mountain-moving faith, some of us possess a mountain of doubt.
It has been my experience that those who doubt more than they believe try to subject God to the limits of their own reason. They want God on their terms, according to their own rationale. They seem to say that if they were God, things would have been done differently. And right here, I believe, is the crux of the problem. They see themselves as God. For to be wiser than God is to be God.
If we really want to get to know God, it is better to begin with faith. What we really need is a faith that seeks understanding rather than an understanding that seeks faith. To put it another way, "In Doubt? Faith It!" No matter how little our faith might be - even if it is smaller than a mustard seed - God is saying to us today that there is great potential for its growth.
13. Thomas - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
If I were to mention the names of certain disciples to you and ask you to write down the first word that comes into your mind, it is unlikely you would come up with the same words. If I were to mention the name of Judas many of you would write down the word "betray" but not all of you. If I were to mention Simon Peter, some of you would write down the word "faith," but not all of you. If I were to mention the names of James and John, some of you would write down the phrase "Sons of Thunder," but not all of you. But when I mention the word Thomas, there is little question about the word most everyone would write down. It would be the word doubt. Indeed, so closely have we associated Thomas with this word, that we have coined a phrase to describe him: "Doubting Thomas."
You may be interested to know that in the first three gospels we are told absolutely nothing at all about Thomas. It is in John's Gospel that he emerges as a distinct personality, but even then there are only 155 words about him. There is not a lot about this disciple in the Bible but there is more than one description.
When Jesus turned his face toward Jerusalem the disciples thought that it would be certain death for all of them. Surprisingly, it was Thomas who said: Then let us go so that we may die with him. It was a courageous statement, yet we don't remember him for that. We also fail to point out that in this story of Thomas' doubt we have the one place in the all the Gospels where the Divinity of Christ is bluntly and unequivocally stated. It is interesting, is it not, that the story that gives Thomas his infamous nickname, is the same story that has Thomas making an earth shattering confession of faith? Look at his confession, "My Lord, and my God." Not teacher. Not Lord. Not Messiah. But God! It is the only place where Jesus is called God without qualification of any kind. It is uttered with conviction as if Thomas was simply recognizing a fact, just as 2 + 2 = 4, and the sun is in the sky. You are my Lord and my God! These are certainly not the words of a doubter.
Unfortunately history has remembered him for this scene where the resurrected Christ made an appearance to the disciples in a home in Jerusalem. Thomas was not present and when he heard about the event he refused to believe it. Maybe he was the forerunner of modern day cynicism. Maybe the news simply sounded too good to be true. Thomas said: Unless I feel the nail prints in his hands I will not believe.
Now I cannot help but notice that Thomas has separated himself from the disciples and therefore, in his solitude, missed the resurrection appearance. I think that john is suggesting to us that Christ appears most often within the community of believers that we call the church, and when we separate ourselves from the church we take a chance on missing his unique presence.
But the story doesn't end here. The second time Jesus made his appearance Thomas was present with the disciples and this time he too witnessed the event. This time he believed. What can we learn from the life of Thomas?
1. Jesus did not blame him.
2. The most endearing things in life can never be proven.
3. We must move beyond doubt to faith.
14. The Iniquity of us All
Illustration
James Packer
Why did the Father will the death of his only beloved Son, and in so painful and shameful a form? Because the Father had "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). Jesus' death was vicarious (undergone in our place) and atoning (securing remission of sins for us and reconciliation to God). It was a sacrificial death, fulfilling the principle of atonement taught in connection with the Old Testament sacrifices: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11).
As the "last Adam," the second man in history to act on mankind's behalf, Jesus died a representative death. As a sacrificial victim who put away our sins by undergoing the death penalty that was our due, Jesus died as our substitute. By removing God's wrath against us for sin, his death was an act of propitiation (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2,; 4:10 "expiation," signifying that which puts away sin, is only half the meaning). By saving us from slavery to ungodliness and divine retribution for sin, Jesus' death was an act of redemption (Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). By mediating and making peace between us and God, it was an act of reconciliation (Rom. 5:10-11). It opened the door to our justification (pardon and acceptance) and our adoption (becoming God's sons and heirs Rom. 5:1,9; Gal. 4:4-5).
This happy relationship with our Maker, based on and sealed by blood atonement, is the "New Covenant" of which Jesus spoke in the Upper Room (1 Cor. 11:25; Matt. 26:28).
15. How Are We Tempted Today?
Illustration
King Duncan
William Willimon, in his book What's Right with the Church (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985), tells about leading a Sunday School class that was studying the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. After careful study and explanation of each of the three temptations, Dr. Willimon asked, "How are we tempted today?" A young salesman was the first to speak. "Temptation is when your boss calls you in, as mine did yesterday, and says, `I'm going to give you a real opportunity. I'm going to give you a bigger sales territory. We believe that you are going places, young man.'
"But I don't want a bigger sales territory," the young salesman told his boss. "I'm already away from home four nights a week. It wouldn't be fair to my wife and daughter."
"Look," his boss replied, "we're asking you to do this for your wife and daughter. Don't you want to be a good father? It takes money to support a family these days. Sure, your little girl doesn't take much money now, but think of the future. Think of her future. I'm only asking you to do this for them," the boss said.
The young man told the class, "Now, that's temptation."
Jesus overcame his first temptation by putting his complete trust in God. That's a good example for us. We're so concerned about "having it all." The wise person trusts that God will provide all that he or she needs.
16. Why Do You Go On?
Illustration
Robert Bachelder
Temptation is no less terrible for Christians today than it was for those of Peter's time. We live in a pagan culture. There is a constant temptation for us to fall away from our faith toward the prevailing hedonism. There is a steady temptation to go after the great gods of pleasure and materialism. We have our choices to make! But do you know something? This fact should not discourage us. Instead, it should hearten us. It means not only that we are free to reject God, but that we also are free to choose God, even amidst those forces which prey upon life.
This is one meaning of a moving story related by Elie Wiesel. He tells of a teacher, a just man, who came to Sodom, determined to save its inhabitants from sin and punishment. Night and day he walked the streets and the markets protesting against greed and theft, falsehood and indifference. In the beginning, people listened and smiled ironically; then they stopped listening, and he no longer even amused them. The killers went on killing; the wise kept silent, as if there were no just men in their midst. One day a child, moved by compassion for the unfortunate teacher, approached him with these words: "You shout, you scream. Don't you see that it is hopeless?" "Yes, I see," answered the just man."Then why do you go on?"
"I'll tell you why," said the just man. "In the beginning …I thought I could change them; today I know that I cannot. If I shout, if I still scream, it is not to change them. It is to prevent them from changing me."
17. WHEN WINNING MEANS LOSING
Illustration
John H. Krahn
For the Christian, life is idyllic. As you embrace Christ, your problems become opportunities, heartaches turn into joys, and bad times fade into the past. Your career succeeds as it never has. Your relationship with those around you is enhanced. Unkind words once directed toward you no longer make their way to your ears. Temptation runs against you, then retreats in dismay. Money is no longer a problem, for you’ll have more than enough. Lovely flowers moving in the fresh breeze send their fragrance your way as the warming rays of the sun fill your body with the feeling of health and beautiful harmony with God and nature. You are God’s special person. He spares you from pain, problems, and poverty.
Hogwash, unmitigated hogwash - more like heresy. If Christianity is as I have just described it, then all of us must be wondering whether we really are Christians. Although our walk with Jesus brings us many blessings that will enhance our lives, the Evil One does not roll over and play dead when we follow Christ but continues to dog us as we make our way through life. Following Jesus Christ also brings with it a degree of suffering as our selfishness is lost to service and discipleship. And as we struggle to be what we are, children of God through Baptism, it is often hard and painful. Christ suffered, his followers suffered, we too will have the privilege of suffering.
Those of us who try to live a moral life in society that is so permissive know the suffering that sometimes accompanies our uniqueness. Often, others look at us in disbelief when we stand for something because it’s right rather than because it’s expedient. To them we appear as losers. But for us to do less is to march to a different drum beat than the one Jesus sounds. Jesus puts it this way, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." To lead a winning Christian life, we lose our selfishness and replace it with selflessness.
Our march through life does not end at the grave but moves beyond. Our vision is both present and future, in this world and the next. Courageously we meet the world, proclaiming the glory of the Lord in word and deed and find strength through him to overcome whatever conflicts our faith might encounter. Leaning on him we seek his Spirit’s power to help us deny ourselves, to bear his cross, and to even suffer for the Gospel’s sake. With Christ we desire that everyone might become his children through faith and join him and us at the Father’s house in eternity.
When we arrive, God will look us over - not for medals, or awards, or degrees, but for scars. Finding them, he will declare, "Ah, a wise person who understood that winning meant losing."
18. Common Confusion About Temptations
Illustration
Charles Stanley
Misunderstandings regarding temptation:
- Temptation itself is sin.
- We fall into temptation.
- God is disappointed and displeased when we are tempted.
- To be strongly tempted means we are as guilty as if we had actually committed sin.
- We overcome all temptation by separation from it.
- When I am spiritually mature, I will no longer be harassed by temptation.
19. Knowing Temptation
Illustration
C. S. Lewis
A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is . . . A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means - the only complete realist.
20. What Is Coming?
Illustration
Joachim Jeremias
This rich farmer, who thinks that he need not fear bad harvests for many a year (v. 19), is a fool (v. 20), that is, according to the biblical meaning of the term, a man who in practice denies the existence of God (Ps. 14.1). He does not take God into account, and fails to see the sword of Damocles, the threat of death, hanging over his head. Here it is necessary to avoid a too obvious conclusion. We are not to think that Jesus intended to impress upon his audience the ancient maxim, 'Death comes suddenly upon man'. Rather do all the appeals and parables of warning taken together show that Jesus is not thinking of the inevitable death of the individual as the impending danger, but of the approaching eschatological catastrophe, and the coming Judgment. Thus here too in Luke 12:16-20 we have an eschatological parable.
Jesus expected his hearers to apply its conclusion to their own situation: we are just as foolish as the rich fool under the threat of death is we heap up property and possessions when the Deluge is threatening.
What is coming? The jackal, who feeds on corpses, will attack the Son of Man as he attacked the Baptist (Luke 13:32). That will be the prelude. Then will come the great hour of temptation, the final assault of the Evil One, destruction of the Temple, and unspeakable calamity (Luke 23.29), and thereafter the judgment of God.
21. The Humanist's Prayer
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
Lyman Abbot once paraphrased the Lord's Prayer to reflect the philosophy of those without God. We might call it the Humanist's Prayer:
Our brethren who art on earth,
hallowed be our name.
Our kingdom come,
our will be done on earth,
for there is no heaven.
must get this day our daily bread;
we neither forgive nor are forgiven.
We fear not temptation,
for we deliver ourselves from evil.
For ours is the kingdom and the power,
and there is no glory and no forever.
22. Examining Ourselves with the Lord's Prayer
Illustration
Staff
- I cannot say “our” if I live only for myself.
- I cannot say “Father” if I do not endeavor each day to act like his child.
- I cannot say “who art in heaven” if I am laying up no treasure there.
- I cannot say “hallowed be thy name” if I am not striving for holiness.
- I cannot say “thy Kingdom come” if I am not doing all in my power to hasten that wonderful event.
- I cannot say “thy will be done” if I am disobedient to his Word.
- I cannot say “on earth as it is in heaven” if I’ll not serve him here and now.
- I cannot say “give us this day our daily bread” if I am dishonest or am seeking things by subterfuge.
- I cannot say “forgive us our debts” if I harbor a grudge against anyone.
- I cannot say “lead us not into temptation” if I deliberately place myself in its path.
- I cannot say “deliver us from evil” if I do not put on the whole armor of God.
- I cannot say “thine is the kingdom” if I do not give the King the loyalty due him from a faithful subject.
- I cannot attribute to him “the power” if I fear what men may do.
- I cannot ascribe to him “the glory” if I’m seeking honor only for myself, and I cannot say “forever” if the horizon of my life is bounded completely by time.
23. GOD MADE ME, AND GOD DOESN’T MAKE ANY JUNK
Illustration
John H. Krahn
There are times in every person’s life when they suffer from feelings of inadequacy. Sometimes we even move from inadequacy to feelings of worthlessness. We feel we are not attractive enough or intelligent enough or as lucky as others. Success, as we dreamed of attaining it, has not happened to us. As we get older, childhood dreams of being someone important begin to vanish. Entering our middle forties, we begin to realize that our current position in life will not increase substantially.
The trappings of success are also elusive. We work so hard to have the good things in life and often find ourselves with little time or energy to enjoy them. There is no way to extend the 168 hours which comprise each week. The husband works fifty or more hours a week, and the wife works so the kids can go to college. In the process of trying to enhance the collective life of the family, less and less time is left to spend together sharing one another’s love and happiness. There is little wonder that we so often feel uptight and junky.
But God’s good word is that he made us, and he doesn’t make junk. In the Bible we read that we were created in the image of God. We were molded in the image of our Maker. Like God we can reason, we have a mind, a memory and a will. God even put us in charge of everything he created. God was pleased with his workmanship of man and said, "It is good." He made nothing more special or more beautiful than us. Made in the image of God, we even have the ability to control much of our destiny.
We should not think of ourselves as less than God thought of us. Look at your hands. They’re hands very much like the hands of Jesus. And Jesus was no junk. There should no more be a junky John or junky Mary or junky Kathy than a junky Jesus. Jesus was a man, and like us in every way with the exception of sin. And that is the difference. For you see, sin is the chief purveyor of junk in our lives. It was Adam and Eve’s sin of trying to be as God that tarnished the fullness of their image of God. It made them less than what God wanted for them. Sin brought with it pain and death. It pushed them away from God.
Yes, God made each of us, and he doesn’t make junk. We produce the junk in our lives when we let temptation get the best of us, when we try to attain unattainable goals and then labor under feelings of failure, when we get our priorities all mixed up, and when we walk life’s way apart from God.
Let’s not live one more day of our precious lives in a manner less than God desires. We confess our sins before the Almighty. We welcome Jesus’ entrance into our lives with all the power of the Holy Spirit. We pray, "Lord, lead me onto beautiful paths of meaningful life." And we boldly proclaim to ourselves and before the world, "God made me, and God doesn’t make any junk."
24. Riches and Things
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
One of the greatest temptations in this marvelous land of plenty in which we live is the temptation to measure life's success in dollar signs - in the accumulation of possessions. The dollar sign can easily become almighty for us. That is a primary means we have in our culture of measuring a person's worth. The more money you make, the more you are worth. That is simply the way it is in our culture.
With the money we make we can buy this world's goods. And there are plenty of goods to buy. Just watch an hour of television. We are bombarded with commercials. Buy this. Purchase that. You need this. You cannot get along without that. The consumer goods literally dance before our eyes. That is the American way.
Riches and things. That is the American dream. The more riches and things we possess the better off we are. We have been sold that agenda. It is part of who we are. We almost take it for granted. To be a blessed person in this society is to be flush with riches and things. The world and the Evil One will try to get us to conform to that agenda. When Christian people start defining Christian blessings in the same terms, when Christian people start defining blessings in terms of riches and things, then the world has simply won the battle. "Name it and claim it," the "prosperity Gospel" says. "God does not want anyone to be poor." Those slogans are a sure sign that the world has gotten the upper hand in the struggle for our soul.
25. Fear of Dying
Illustration
King Duncan
Warren Buffett, a financial investment genius and the second-richest man in America, has his doubts about life beyond the grave, and it worries him. Buffett admits, "There is one thing I am scared of. I am afraid to die." His biographer Roger Lowenstein, writes: "Warren's exploits were always based on numbers, which he trusted above all else. In contrast, he did not subscribe to his family's religion. Even at a young age, he was too mathematical, and too logical, to make the leap of faith. He adopted his father's ethical underpinnings, but not his belief in an unseen divinity." And thus Warren Buffet, one of the most successful men in the world, is stricken with one terrifying fear, the fear of dying.
On a lighter note, Buffett once said, "What I want people to say when they pass my casket is, "Boy, was he old!"
Buffett is not alone in his doubt and his fear. Even though the majority of people in this country and even in the world believe in God and believe in life after the grave, there has always been a minority who finds this too great a leap of faith to take. And the natural response to such doubt is fear.
26. JUDGE
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Numbers 25:5 - "And Moses said to the judges of Israel, ‘Every one of you slay his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.’ "
1 Chronicles 17:10 - "from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will subdue all your enemies."
If you will check any good anthropology text, you will find that even in very primitive societies, certain persons serve as judges. In the earliest times, the head of the house was considered judge over his household, even with life and death. With the enlargement of the human family, this power quite naturally passed to the heads of tribes and clans.
Moses, we find, followed Jethro’s advice and appointed judges for every "small matter" while Moses decided the important things. Upon Moses’ death, judges handled all the disputes. During the period known as the time of the Judges (1225-1020 B.C.), military leaders seem to have served as judges. When the monarchy was established, the king and his officers became the highest legal authorities. David appointed 6,000 Levites as judges and officers. Ezra was ordered by the king of Persia to appoint judges.
All Israelites (except women, who were forbidden by the Palestinian Talmud) were deemed qualified to serve as judges in civil matters, but only priests, Levites, and Israelites of spotless character and ancestery could judge a criminal case. Qualifications for a judge were knowledge of the Law and integrity.
Although there were no age limits for judges, as the Sanhedrin became the judicial body for the Jews, it became obvious that a very young man could not qualify. To become a member of this supreme court of the Jews, a man must possess wisdom, a knowledge of foreign languages and of science, to be of good height, and possess an appearance which commanded respect. Among those who were disqualified were eunuchs, childless men, professional gamblers, shepherds, farmers, tax collectors, robbers, extortioners, and all those suspected of dishonesty.
Judges were thought of as performing a sacred duty; deliberating over a decision was described as "inquiring of God." During the period of the Judges, these leaders were charismatic, and did not hold the position indefinitely. In these times, to be a judge was to hold an honorary, voluntary position, for which one was not paid. Later, judges were paid for their services, just as our judges are today.
It was preferred that a case be decided by at least three judges, and we find this custom existing in an expanded form today in our supreme courts.
27. The Growing Gap in America
Illustration
Will Willimon
In the early 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting our young nation, was struck by the "general equality of condition among American people." Few were very rich, and few were terribly poor, and de Tocqueville felt that this was fertile soil for the development of true democracy.
Somewhere between there and now we changed. Today, perhaps the most noticeable aspect of American economics and perhaps the most dangerous aspect of American politics, is the growing gap between rich and poor.
Bidding farewell to my German exchange student last year I asked, "What will be your most vivid memory which you will take back to Germany with you after a year in Durham?"
He replied, "Armen and Elend." Poverty and misery. He had never really experienced grinding, pervasive poverty until he entered neighborhoods not a mile from this campus. Some memory of America.
28. AMBASSADOR
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Isaiah 18:2 - "which sends ambassadors by the Nile, in vessels of papyrus upon the waters! Go, you swift messengers, to a nation, tall and smooth, to a people feared near and far, a nation mighty and conquering, whose land the rivers divided."
Ezekiel 17:15 - "But he rebelled against him, by sending ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army ..."
There are several ways in which we can translate the words used for "ambassador" in the Bible, but the most frequently used interpretation is that of messenger, from the Hebrew mal’ akh, or malach, which means messenger. This word has an interesting biblical history of its own. We are, of course, familiar with the Old Testament book of Malachi, and no doubt assumed that this was the author’s name. However, this was a clerical error at some time in the past, so that a word which meant "messenger" was wrongly given as the name of a man! We also find this as being used when referring to any supernatural messenger from God - an angel. Angels, then, can be considered ambassadors from God, carrying messages to men.
We can also use the Greek words in the New Testament, which translate into "to be older," or "aged, dignity," or "aged." This incorporates the idea of wisdom and experience, and certainly these were needed qualities, just as much as today. Why should this be so? Well, let’s consider the position of the ambassador.
These men were used to send congratulations, to make alliances, and to protest wrongs, among the more outstanding of their duties. Now, obviously, you can’t send just anyone on such missions. So, these men of wisdom, as we have said, and also men who possessed great education and ability. They were usually men of high rank, as Sennacherib’s chief-marshall, Tartan; chief eunuch, Rabsaris; and chief-officer, Rabshakey, met by Hezekiah’s house-master, scribe and recorder (2 Kings 18:17ff).
Today our ambassadors, our consuls, our emmisaries, and other statesmen who confer with heads of state of other nations, are representative of our government and its policies. Most of these positions are resident ones - that is, the individual is the personal representative of the President and Congress, living in a certain foreign land. He is a go-between in conveying messages from our nation to another. In that manner, his function is the same as his biblical predecessor’s. However, the concept of his actually living in another land is probably foreign to the biblical idea. An ambassador was sent out to wherever and whenever it was necessary, and then returned to home base.
In one other way, however, the ancient and the modern ambassadors share; that is, both had (and have) diplomatic immunity. We are sometimes upset because representatives of other nations violate our laws, and cannot be prosecuted. In just such a way 2 Samuel 10:4, did the poeple of Hunan violate the immunity of the ambassadors sent by David. There is really nothing new under the sun!
29. Our Greatest Enemy
Illustration
Richard Rohr
The greatest enemy of faith is not doubt; the greatest enemy of faith is fear. Most of the world is controlled by fear, petty and big. Petty fears control people; great fears control nations. We could feed all the people in this world if we would stop building arms, but we are afraid. In the Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) Jesus said, "Those of you who make peace will he happy. You will be God's own." Yet even Christians are preoccupied with fear and protecting ourselves because we don't believe what Jesus said. The Sermon on the Mount is an antidote to fear. But we have never seen fear as the crucial issue, only "doubt."
30. THE CROSS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
The cross best proclaims the indisputable fact that we worship a caring God. It is the most popular of all Christian symbols. There is no Christianity without the cross.
The cross shouts God’s words of love to each of us. It is his proclamation of possibility beyond the present. In it is hope for the hopeless, love for the loveless, encouragement for the depressed, and the pronouncement of life beyond death for those who grieve the loss of a friend or contemplate their own demise. Its importance to our faith cannot be over-emphasized, its proclamation must never be subdued. It trumpets, "God cares!" That’s music to our ears - the best news we could ever hear.
As I look at the cross, I cannot help but think of a movie I saw years ago. Few movies in my life have had the impact of Ben Hur. Many scenes made an indelible impression - the great sea battle, the exciting chariot race, the repugnant leprosy colony. Yet, none hit harder than the crucifixion of our Lord. The sound of hammer on nail rings through the air, the cross rises until it suddenly thumps into place. Slowly Jesus’ blood begins to flow - one drop, then another ... a puddle forms beneath the cross. It begins to rain. Water mixes with more blood, and together they begin to trickle down the hillside. The trickle becomes a stream as the blood washes over God’s creation. We are reminded that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
At Calvary God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. The blood of Christ pouring down the cross restored our relationship with the Father. We cannot fully understand the mystery of God’s plan to recapture a creation gone astray. We only know that all who come to the cross in simple, trusting faith are cleansed by his blood and find peace with the Father.
By his death Jesus has unchained us. Unchained - there is no better word for it. He has set us free from the wages of our sins that only pay dividends in hell and has set us on the positive pathway of a life with God. Our eyes need no longer be downcast; our head has no reason to be between our knees. We are no longer oppressed with our weighty sins, for we have been touched by none other than God. He has cared not just a little but powerfully. His power encountered our sin, and it was no more. His incredible desire to rescue us in spite of everything dispels even the worst sin. But we must be wise enough to permit ourselves and our sins to be encountered by that desire.
31. The Law of Chocolate
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Many people are physiologically sensitive to chocolate. Certain of the larger benzene compounds present in chocolate are resisted by their bodies through an allergic reaction. Depending on the individual, this reaction may range from very mild, producing a minor skin rash, to very severe, producing medical shock and death. Chocolate is fatal for some persons not because chocolate is poisonous in and of itself but because of the biochemical makeup of their bodies.
In a similar way, the power of sin in man reacts to the law and brings death. As Paul says in Romans 7, this happens not because the law is evil but because of sin within us.
32. WE HAVE GREAT POTENTIAL
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Until Jesus Christ permeates every fiber of our being, we can never begin to appreciate the power and potentiality available in us. We continue to doubt whether we can do this or that or be what we want to be. Yet, God wants us to reach the heights of our created potential. God wants us to develop a faith that can handle both problems and opportunities. He desires that we capture his vision of our worth and our latent abilities.
Some time ago I saw the play Man of La Mancha. I believe it illustrates what I am saying. The man of La Mancha comes to a wayside inn. Here the camel drivers stop. He sees Aldonza, the waitress, there. She is also the local prostitute. Aldonza is dirty and smells from perspiration. "Ho, my lady. You will be my lady ... every knight needs a lady, and you will be my lady. And I will give you a new name, it will no longer be Aldonza but Dulcinea." She looks at him in amazement. "Me, your lady, ha!" she kicks up her heels, grabs a sack of money out of his hand, runs off the stage. Every time the man of La Mancha sees her, he says, "You are a lady, you have a new name. I have given it to you. It is Dulcinea."
The curtain opens on another scene ... the stage is empty. It’s night. Suddenly Aldonza comes on stage. Her hair is disheveled; she has blood and dirt and mud on her; her skirt is torn. She’s been raped. Hysterical, she runs confused and crying to the middle of the stage. Off to the side enters the man of La Mancha. When he sees her, he says, "Ho, my lady." To which she replies, "Don’t call me a lady. Look at me; I was born in a ditch; my mother left me naked and cold and too hungry to cry. I never blamed her; I’m sure she left hoping I would have the good sense to die. Ah ... look at me, I’m no lady, I’m only a kitchen slu*t, reeking with sweat, a strumpet men use and forget. Oh God, I am no lady; I am only Aldonza. I am nothing at all." Then she runs away and is gone.
And now it is the last scene. The man of La Mancha, like Jesus of Nazareth, has been despised, rejected by men, a man of sorrow, acquainted with grief. He is dying, like our Lord, from a broken heart. While on his deathbed, a courtly woman comes to his side. She has a beautiful mantilla which covers her modestly. She kneels beside him and says, "My lord, my lord."
Through a haze he looks at her and asks, "Who are you?"
"My lord, look, don’t you remember? Try to remember, my lord. You sang the song, remember ... to dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatablc foe. My lord you gave me a new name. You called me your lady."
And through eyes clouded with death he recognizes her and says, "Dulcinea," and he dies.
God has given all of us great potential. He believes in us and wants to help us lead full and useful lives. We need to join God in his faith in us. An ever-deepening faith in Jesus Christ is the best way to accomplish this. Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest and bless us with a doubt-cleansing faith, a possibility - expanding faith, a faith that opens up our great potential.
33. More vs. Love
Illustration
Leonard Sweet
The world's philosophy is a four-letter word: More. The church's theology is also a four-letter word, but it often means the opposite of more: Love. Will the church be a force and a forum for love?
The problem with our world, our nation and our church can be summed up in one word: More. "More" has become, as Laurence Shames has put it, America's "unofficial national motto." We want more of everything: more fun, more money, more excitement, more love, more programs, more church members, more, more, more. "More is what Americans are used to, what we perceive as normal, here in the land of the escalation clause, the built-in increase. More is the way we think about 'success.'" And more is what America and the world is running out of.
The indecent discrepancy between the rich man's lifestyle and Lazarus' life-struggle was appalling. But for a long time Americans have considered themselves pretty much delivered from that kind of fearful inequality. That's why we have lumped nearly everyone into this country's great "middle class." Of course there have always been a few exceedingly rich individuals. And of course, any realistic person knows that a certain number of poor "will always be with us." But both rich and poor are still considered anomalies to the norm.
34. Your Life Is Required of You in the Hymns
Illustration
Richard Patt
Many of the hymns of Christianity stir in us a regard to the urgency of our eternal salvation. "Delay not, delay not, O sinner draw near ... delay not, delay not, the hour is at hand." The Advent hymns breathe the urgency too: "Prepare the royal highway; the King of kings is near! Let every hill and valley a level road appear!"
Or how about the old Gospel hymn:
Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling,
calling for you and for me;
Time is now fleeting,
the moments are passing,
passing for you and for me.
There are spiritual urgencies concerning our salvation that we need to tend to!
Harry Emerson Fosdick stated the urgency long ago in a verse of his hymn, "God Of Grace And God Of Glory." He writes:
Rich in things and poor in soul:
Grant us wisdom, grant us courage
lest we miss your kingdom's goal;
lest we miss your kingdom's goal.
35. Courage
Illustration
Mark Trotter
I remember Paul Tillich, the great theologian, defined faith as courage. That is just wonderful. He said that is what faith will look like when you see it. It will look like courage. What faith is, is acting on your trust that God is faithful. Most of the time, if you are doing anything worthwhile, it is done on faith, and it takes courage.
Most people think the opposite of faith is doubt. They think, "I have some doubts, therefore I don't have faith." Well faith doesn't remove doubt. Faith is courage to go into an unknown future in spite of the doubts. Faith doesn't remove fear either. Faith is the courage to do the right thing even when your knees are trembling. Faith doesn't remove disappointments, or guarantee victory. Faith is the courage to keep on going even when you want to give up, but you keep on going.
That is what faith looks like. Madeleine L'Engel put it perfectly. "I don't have to have some special qualification to do what I have to do. All I have to do is have the courage to go on and do it."
36. The Man in the Middle
Illustration
Jerry Goebel
Luke, the painter, sketches a scene for us that should be imprinted upon our hearts for eternity: Two men – "evil doers" – only a few meters apart, and Jesus, the man in the middle. All three are suffering the most horrific torture that the decadent Roman Empire could concoct. Two men suffer for their sins; one man suffers for the sins of others. For one of these two men, death will be liberation from the agonies of this world; it will be the "way to life." For the other, death will be a continuation of the torment he has chosen as his "way of living."
Two men, meters apart, with Jesus in the middle, both men representative of the inner struggle that each of us must face. Which man am I choosing to become? One man mocks and condemns the faithful. He makes demands and all of his demands are self-centric. What is to keep me from becoming that man? One man acknowledges his sin and leaps to the defense of the beaten Jesus. He takes the mocking that is aimed at the vulnerable Jesus and says, "If you are to mock anyone, mock me, for I deserve this death."
What can I do to help me become that man?
What can I do to become less self-centric, cynical, demanding and hateful? What can I do to become an advocate for the vulnerable, aware of my own selfishness and sin, absent of judgment and spite? Finally, what can I do to make sure that my last words ask for forgiveness and love and not be demanding words of spite and condemnation?
Two men, meters apart, with Jesus in the middle. One received salvation on that day; one continued in bitterness for eternity. And Jesus is still in the middle.
37. Law and Gospel
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
Martin Luther asserted that the true theologian was the one who could rightly distinguish between law and gospel. When Lutherans, including this Lutheran, work at theology we almost always work within the parameters of law and gospel. Protestant theology in general talks about three uses of the law. The first use of law is usually termed the political or civil use of law. The second use of the law, the spiritual or theological use, is the law as a mirror in which we see our lives; the law as revealer of our sins. The third use of the law is law as a guide for Christian living. There is much debate even among Lutherans whether Luther taught the third use of the law. I do not believe that he did.
The function of the civil use of law is to help humankind create a civil society. Since all people bear the law within their being, all people can work to make society a more civil place to live. Preaching on the civil use of the law would call upon people to make use of their rational intelligence in making ethical decisions in life and in working toward a civil society. There is nothing particularly Christian about the civil use of the law. It need not, therefore, occupy too much of our preaching energy. The dialogical nature of the classroom is much better suited for the important discussions of the nature of the way we might best work for an improved civil order.
The theological or spiritual use of the law was for Luther the proper use of the law. The law, that is, reveals to us our sinfulness. "What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin .... Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me (Romans 7:7, 8-10)."
The law always kills! That was Luther's dictum about the spiritual use of the law. The law always leaves me helpless, consigned to wrath, doomed to death. This is the proper use of the law and is therefore the proper use of the law in preaching. To preach the law is to render people helpless in their relationship to God. The law kills us and leaves us dead in the eyes of God.
The third use of the law is the law as a guide to Christian living. For Calvin this was the proper use of the law. This marks a radical breach among protestants. Some protestants see the law as God's revealed law for life. Clearly such a law should be preached so that people know how to live! I have already stated my conviction that Martin Luther did not teach the third use of the law in this manner. He did not believe that God revealed the law either to Israel or to Christians as a guide to living! The most radical instance of this is Luther's comments on the law as given to Moses. Luther said, "I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave commandments, but because they have been implanted in me by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature etc."1
Luther believed that the law was natural to every person alive. That's the first use of the law! For Luther, therefore, the law does not need to be revealed. If that is the case then we will need spend little time preaching the law as a guide to life. Here, too, it may be better to deal with such ethical questions about life in discussion forums under the assumption that each person brings unique resources, resources given them by God the Creator, to the discussion.
Preach the law. Preach the costly law. Preach the law that costs sinners their life and brings them to the point that they cry out for a Savior.
38. Spiritual Teaching Gifts
Illustration
Dr. Earl Radmacher
The following is an attempt byDr. Earl Radmacher and Gordon McMinn to identify and define spiritual gifts centered around teaching.
- Prophecy: setting before people the Word and wisdom of God persuasively.
- Encouragement: drawing alongside to comfort, encourage, rebuke, and lead someone into insight toward action.
- Teaching: laying down in a systematic order the complete truth of a doctrine and applying it incisively to life.
- The message of wisdom: Locating formerly unknown principles as well as combining known principles of God's Word and communicating them to fresh situations.
- The message of knowledge: Arranging the facts of Scripture, categorizing these into principles, and communicating them to repeated or familiar situations.
- Service Gifts. Contributing: Giving most liberally and beyond all human expectation. Mercy: Being sensitive or empathetic to people who are in affliction or misery and lifting internal burdens with cheerfulness.
- Helps: Seeing tasks and doing them for or with someone in order to lift external burdens.
- Distinguishing spirits: Detecting a genuine or spurious motive by distinguishing the spirit-source behind any person's speech or act.
- Evangelism: Communicating the gospel with power and persuasiveness as well as equipping the saints for evangelism.
- Leadership Gifts. Leadership (executive ability): Standing before people and inspiring followers by leading them aggressively but with care.
- Administration (legislative ability): Standing behind people to collect data, set policy, and develop plans which will guide a course of action with wisdom.
- Faith: Seeing through any problem to the Ultimate Resource.
What about the so-called sign gifts, such as healing and speaking in tongues, referred to in today's text? To us, Hebrews 2:4 suggests that they were intended to be confirming signs for the Apostles, and ceased with them. Others feel they are still for today, but if so, one thing is clear: they are given sovereignly by the Spirit for specific purposes and are the exception, not the rule.
39. Finding Fault
Illustration
Hugh Drennan
A singer in the choirhas joined a group of complainers at a school board meeting. They complain about poor teaching and bad administration. They grumble about the sports program, losing seasons and poor coaching. They find fault with the taxes, which are too high, and the budget which is too low to allow for the programs they want. They criticize, gripe and whine about a myriad of issues and people. The Singer’s voice is among the loudest and most vocal. The board surprises the complainers by inviting them to take one of their number who will be invited to have a seat on the board at that very moment. The Singer is selected.
As the Singer moves forward to assume her new responsibility, it dawns upon her that now she has to find solutions rather than just find fault. She looks back to her fault-finding companions, and finds no wise counsel. She then looks at the members of the board who smile back at her, who recognize her revelation about their common task. The Singer bows her head and prays for wisdom, wisdom to find and implement solutions for this important cause. As she lifts her head to begin her work, she feels blessed by the opportunity to be of service.
Reflection
It is easy to find fault. One can always find company in the household of complainers and scoffers. But that company is not a blessing, it just makes you an angry person in the midst of angry folk. Solutions to difficult problems that face society are not easy to come by. They require a good deal of work, dedication and willingness to be criticized by others. But they also contain great reward. When one seeks to serve, not for personal glory or power but just to serve, you are caught up in something greater than self. At those times we are partners with God, God’s agents and stewards here on earth. And in knowing that we are blessed and bear fruit.
40. The Senility Prayer
Illustration
Brett Blair
Have you ever felt unprepared? I mean for Christ's second coming? At times I know that if the sky cracked open and the trumpet sounded for the saints to be called home I would not be ready. Reinhold Niebuhr was a famous theologian known to most all us clergy. You perhaps are not familiar with him but you are familiar with his prayer:
God grant me the serenity,
To accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
The world has adopted this prayer and made it powerless. Here's the rest of it...
Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as the pathway to peace.
Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it.
Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will. [there's the power]
That I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen.
We know it as the Serenity Prayer and it conveys an attitude I like very well. On many occasions I absolutely refuse to accept people I know I have no possibility of changing. On other occasions I don't have the courage to root out some sin from my life. Why? Cause I don't wanna'. And wisdom? Well, you know very well that's in short supply. The more I can adopt the attitude of the serenity prayer the more ready I know I will be for His coming.
But unfortunately many of us are like the elderly lady who in jest posted on her door in the retirement village the "Senility Prayer":
God, grant me the senility
To forget the people I've never liked,
The good fortune to run into the ones that I do like,
And the eyesight to tell the difference.
41. The Beginning of Wisdom
Illustration
Abdul Kassem Ismael (A.D. 938 to 995) was theGrand Vizier of Persia. Legend has it that the avid reader was so enthralled with literature and learning that he never left home without his personal library. The 400-camel caravan carried 117,000 books and must have been more than a mile long! Nevertheless, Ismael’s camel-drivers were also librarians, each responsible for the books on his camel, and could locate any book almost immediately because the animals were trained to walk in alphabetical order.
The Bible says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10) and “knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). We may, like Ismael, pursue all the knowledge of the Lord. But Paul says that if we don’t have love, we are nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2). John says that when we know God, we love. (1 John 4:7, 8) True wisdom—a knowledge of God—will result in His love being embodied in us. Until then, our knowledge means nothing.
42. The Final Outcome Is Not in Doubt
Illustration
John P. Jewell
Here's a critical issue for living. The final outcome is not in doubt! Life is not like an NBA basketball game where victory hangs in the balance until the last second and the crowd sits on the edge of their seats waiting to see who will prevail. In God's universe, good will triumph! The right will prevail! Justice is certain! However, It is only with the eyes of faith we can see the outcome. The letter to the Hebrews says, "...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1)
From the beginning of scripture to the end, there are good times and bad times for God's people there are utterly joyous times and bone crushing horrid times. The long haul outcome, however, is never in doubt to the eyes of faith.
43. More Than Love
Illustration
Dave Johnson
In his profound book, The Cross of Christ, John Stott wrote about how in his death on the cross Jesus paid our sin debt in full:
“God’s love must be wonderful beyond comprehension. God could quite justly have abandoned us to our fate. He could have left us alone to reap the fruit of our wrongdoing and to perish in our sins. It is what we deserved. But he did not. Because he loved us, he came after us in Christ. He pursued us even to the desolate anguish of the cross, where he bore our sin, guilt, judgment, and death… It is more than love. Its proper name is ‘grace,’ which is love to the undeserving. (God) himself in his Son has borne the penalty for (our) law-breaking” (pp. 83 and 190).
44. Your Life Is Required of You in the Hymns
Illustration
Richard Patt
Many of the hymns of Christianity stir in us a regard to the urgency of our eternal salvation. "Delay not, delay not, O sinner draw near ... delay not, delay not, the hour is at hand." The Advent hymns breathe the urgency too: "Prepare the royal highway; the King of kings is near! Let every hill and valley a level road appear!"
Or how about the old Gospel hymn: Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling, calling for you and for me; Time is now fleeting, the moments are passing, passing for you and for me. There are spiritual urgencies concerning our salvation that we need to tend to!
Harry Emerson Fosdick stated the urgency long ago in a verse of his hymn, "God Of Grace and God Of Glory." He writes: Rich in things and poor in soul: Grant us wisdom, grant us courage lest we miss your kingdom's goal; lest we miss your kingdom's goal.
45. A Seeking Doubt
Illustration
Mickey Anders
Someone described Thomas' doubt as a "seeking doubt, a doubt that wants not to continue to doubt but to come to believe."
Thomas makes it clear to us that there is more than one kind of doubt. There is the kind of doubt that does not want to believe, that reaches for arguments in order to deny the affirmations of the faith. But there is also that "seeking doubt." This is a person who earnestly wants to believe but honestly admits that he struggles to understand. This kind of doubt actually energizes and expands faith.
46. God Loves Us All
Illustration
King Duncan
I was reading recently about a tribe in Africa known as the Masai, a race of strong, tall people. This particular tribe has always believed in one god, Engai. They believe Engai is passionately involved in his people's lives. But here is what the Masai believe about their god: that he loves the rich more than the poor, the healthy more than the sick, the virtuous more than the wicked. Engai favors the Masai over every other tribe, providing them with rain and sleek cattle and protecting them against their enemies.
We could call such views primitive if we were not aware that this is how many Christians view God - a God who favors some people over others. But this is not the God that Jesus gave us. Jesus taught us to call God "Abba" or "Daddy" and taught us that God loves all people equally whether they are rich or poor - black, brown, yellow, red or white - whether they live in the United States or in China or anywhere else in the world. God plays no favorites. God loves us all. Is that important?
You bet it is. It's important in how we think about others and it is important in how we think about ourselves.
47. IN THE PROVERBIAL PITS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Most of us think we are pretty good - not worthy of going to hell. In commercials we are told to use a variety of products. Why? Because we are worth it. Commercials and best-selling books discourage us from seeing ourselves in a negative light, unable to be in control over every situation in life - even over our life beyond life.
Therefore, if someone says to you, "Go to hell," it is an affront. The person who says such a thing infers that in his opinion you are not number one but that you are the pits. We have no right to say such a thing, for it is much like the pot calling the kettle black. Yet, when Jesus Christ returns to earth at the end of time, he will have to tell billions of people to "Go to hell." Why? Because all people are sinners and cannot save themselves. Until we recognize our sinfulness, we will never desire a savior. The problem is that we all think we’re pretty good people. Compared to what? - other sinners, maybe - but not to a righteous God.
And what is the Bible’s standard for salvation? Jesus told us when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as my father in heaven is perfect." Perfection. One hundred percent is the only passing grade. God doesn’t grade on a curve. The Book of James puts it another way, "If we offend in one point we are guilty of all." If we commit just one sin, we step outside the realm of the law and become an outlaw. You don’t have to break every law in the book to be a criminal - just kill one person.
Sin is a "four-letter word" ... a dirty word, that will someday keep us out of heaven if left alone. It puts us in the proverbial pits. It is a cancer of the soul, and if left untreated, it brings everlasting death. I cannot imagine anything more awful than to stand before the Lord Jesus at the end of time, and have him say, "John, go to hell!" Satan works overtime to delude us into thinking that we are good enough to make it to heaven on our own. If we want to know how black and hideous our hearts are in the sight of God, we need only take a long look at the cross. God considered our sin so terrible and our lives so important that he sent his Son to the cross to die for us.
Heaven is a free gift and is not earned or deserved. Grace is God’s riches at Christ’s expense. People are sinners and cannot save themselves. Our sinful condition will lead to eternal death if left unchecked. If we accept God’s gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ, we can have the confidence of everlasting life in heaven.
48. Sell the Church
Illustration
Bill Bouknight
The Rev. Will Campbell is a Baptist prophet from the hills of North Carolina. A few years ago he was invited to preach at the prestigious Riverside Church in New York City. That church has long been noted for its activist preachers and liberal, politically correct agenda. Will Campbell was asked to preach on this subject: "What Riverside Church Can Do to Help the Future of Race Relations in America." Campbell took for his text the same one I am using today, the story of the rich young ruler. At the beginning of his sermon he asked, "What can Riverside Church do to help race relations? What can this church do to relate to its next-door neighbors in Harlem? "Nothing," said Campbell, "nothing...unless you sell your big building and give it to the poor. Let's go out on the street and see what you can get for this big building." Needless to say, the host preacher and congregation were not amused. They wanted an answer that was reasonable, practical, and fashionable; not some shocking, outrageous answer. A liberal congregation had been out-liberaled. You can see why I wasn't about to invite Will Campbell to speak here during our recent Capital Funds campaign.
Will Campbell and Jesus have at least this in common: they shocked people often. Obviously, Jesus allowed no committee of political handlers to edit his material. He said things like, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword." "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." When Jesus met the Rich Young Ruler, he lobbed another spiritual hand grenade. Jesus had the gall to tell a wealthy person to go and sell all that he owned, without even checking with his accountant, and to give it all to the poor, and then to come and follow him. Whoever heard of such a thing?!
49. A Walk With The Devil
Illustration
John E. Sumwalt
The devil came to me the other day, as he often does, and he said, "Preacher, how about joining me for a little walk. It never hurts to walk and talk a little bit, now does it?" I had to admit that I couldn't see any harm in walking and talking, and so I agreed to walk with him for a little while. He led me out the door of the church and up the street to one of our neighborhood convenience stores. He took me up to the counter and said, "I'll tell you what, I'll buy you one of these lottery tickets. He took out his wallet, flashed a large wad of bills, paid the cashier and handed me the ticket. My hands were trembling as I took it. I knew the jackpot this week was $40 million. "Hang on to that ticket and you will be a big winner," he said. "You won't have to work another day in your life." I didn't want to be impolite, so I discreetly put the ticket into my pocket as we left the store, thinking to myself, "I'll tear it up later, after he's gone."
Then he took me up and showed me all the great pulpits of the church in a moment in time. I saw Riverside Church, and the pulpit of the great Harry Emerson Fosdick, and the Crystal Cathedral in all of its splendor. I imagined myself in a beautiful blue robe, preaching to a television audience of millions. "All of this can be yours," he said. "I can build you a cathedral even bigger and grander than this one, and you will have more viewers than any other preacher in history. To you I will give all of this authority and glory, for it is mine to give, and I can give it to whomever I choose. If you help elect me Bishop, it shall all be yours."
I gulped as I looked at all of those influential pulpits in big churches that are coveted by so many preachers but I want you to know that somehow I managed to say, "No, thank you, I'll stay here in my little church where I'm loved and appreciated."
And then the devil took me to the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago. He let me look through the telescope they have up there at a net he had set up on the pavement below. There was a large crowd gathered around the net. They were chanting, "Go go go, go for it." I could see the television crews from CBS, ABC and CNN setting up to film the action. "Go ahead, jump," the devil said. "It's never been done before. Just think, you will be in The Guinness Book of World Records. There will be endorsem*nts, talk shows, movie contracts. Think of all the souls you will be able to save when you are famous. Don't worry about the risk. God will keep you safe. Come on, go for it."
I think that was when I fainted. I'm afraid of heights. And when I came to, the devil was gone, at least for the time being. But I have a feeling that I've not seen the last of him.
Come to think of it I still have that lottery ticket here in my pocket. I'll put it over here in front of the altar for safe keeping. If any of you would like to have it, you are welcome to take it and scratch it off.
Author's Note: I tell this story as part of a sermon on temptation. I buy an actual lottery ticket at a local convenience store, the kind one has to scratch off to win. Then I place it on a stand in front of the altar and use it as a symbol of temptation in our society. I tell the congregation that I was led to purchase it, but not to scratch it off. I give them permission to scratch it off if they wish. In one church where I told the story, people asked me for months afterwards if I ever scratched off that ticket. I never did.
50. One Task
Illustration
Ernest Munachi Ezeogu
A guard in charge of a lighthouse along a dangerous coast was given enough oil for one month and told to keep the light burning every night. One day a woman asked for oil so that her children could stay warm. Then a farmer came. His son needed oil for a lamp so he could read. Another needed some for an engine. The guard saw each as a worthy request and gave some oil to satisfy all. By the end of the month, the tank in the lighthouse was dry. That night the beacon was dark and three ships crashed on the rocks. More than one hundred lives were lost. The lighthouse attendant explained what he had done and why. But the prosecutor replied, "You were given only one task: to keep the light burning. Every other thing was secondary. You have no excuse."
Temptation is a choice between good and evil. But perhaps more insidious than temptation is conflict where one must choose between two good options. The lighthouse keeper in our story found himself in such a conflict situation. So also are the would-be disciples in today's gospel story.
Showing
1
to
50
of
359
results
- 'An effort to suffocate': Experts warn of emerging threats in America's religious freedom battle
- Hundreds gather, dozens baptized at revival event on Ohio State University campus
- 12-year-old Christian girl forcibly converted by Muslim man who kidnapped her in Pakistan
- Episcopal diocese rejects 'misinformation' amid claims it failed to enforce 'safe church' policies
- Abortions on the rise since Roe reversal thanks to abortion pill spike: report
- 'Christian nationalism' label emerges from ignorance and intimidation, panelists warn
- State gov't attacks on pro-life pregnancy care centers on the rise, legal expert says
- Taliban bans women from speaking, showing bare faces in public
- Unconstitutional: Religious broadcasters, churches file lawsuit against Johnson Amendment
- Christian man sentenced to death over TikTok video sparks outcry
- German Pastor to Pay for Anti-LGBTQ Statements
- Should Christians Across Denominations Be Singing the Same Songs?
- Rwanda Explains Why It Closed Thousands of Churches. Again.
- Activist Lila Rose Under Fire for Suggesting Trump Hasn’t Earned the Pro-Life Vote
- More Christian Colleges Will Close. Can They Finish Well?
- Choose This (Labor) Day Whom You Will Serve
- What to Watch for in ‘Rings of Power’ Season 2
- When to Respond to Slander (and When to Ignore It)
- It Is Not Best for Man to Eat Alone
- David Bentley Hart’s Brain-Breaking Argument for the Supremacy of the Mind
- Mountain selfie costs 23-year-old gymnast her life
- Carmelites find St. Teresa of Ávila's body still incorrupt after opening coffin for study of relics
- 'He's in big trouble': GOP adviser says Trump knows he's losing votes on key issue
- Loony MAGA 'Prophet': Trump's Been President Last Four Years
- I was a Trump hater — until I learned the truth of the media’s ‘very fine’ lies
- Donald Trump chases politics and stabs evangelical supporters in the back
- Amitabh Bachchan Schools KBC 16 Contestant On View Of Unmarried Women As ‘Burden’ & We All Are In For It
- Hillsong Founders Launch ‘Online Church’ And Ask For Money
- The Sovereignty of the Latter-day Saints
- Who Is Dan Bilzerian? The Israel-Obsessed, Jew-Hating Misogynist That Elon Musk Protects
- A Shroud of Evidence
- There Never Was a Pro-Life Case for Trump
- Donald Trump and the Sovereign Rights of God
- How a Church Fought Back Against a Liberal Takeover — And Won
- St. Teresa of Ávila's Body Remains Incorrupt After Almost 5 Centuries
- Faith of My Fathers
- Chinese Christians are the Canary in the Coal Mine
- Mohamad Jebara, 'Reclaimer' of the Quran
- Algerian Man Charged Over Synagogue Arson Attack in France
- Religion is America's Mighty Engine of Charitable Goodness
