1 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5 Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
Strength through Diversity
James 2:1-17
Sermon
by Richard Gribble
A wealthy businessman decided to take a walk and eat his lunch at the same time. He strolled through a park and purchased a hot dog and a soft drink. As he walked, enjoying the view, two different street people approached him one by one. Each asked, "Can you help me, I am hungry?" Each time the businessman looked straight ahead and kept walking. After finishing his lunch he began to walk back to his office. He stopped and bought a chocolate eclair for dessert. As he was about to take the first bite, he was forced to jump out of the way as a young boy raced down the sidewalk on his skateboard. The eclair went flying and landed on the ground. The man picked it up and tried to clean it off, but it was no use. It was now a dirty eclair. Before discarding it, however, he had an idea. He strolled over to one of the beggars who had approached him and handing the man the eclair said, "Here you are my good man. This is something for your hunger." The businessman walked away smiling and returned to his office.
That night the man had a dream. He was sitting in a large and crowded cafe. Waitresses were scurrying about bringing customers delicious cakes and tortes. All the waitresses ignored the businessman, even though he was waving his hands at them continually. Finally he caught the eye of a young woman and asked for something to eat. She returned a few minutes later with a dirty piece of pastry. The man was outraged. "You can't treat me this way. I have a right to be served like all the others. I expect good service and food for my money." "You don't seem to understand," the waitress responded kindly. "You can't buy anything here. We don't accept money. You have just arrived in heaven and all you can order here is what you sent ahead while on earth. I just checked the records and the only thing we have for you is this dirty eclair."
The businessman obviously thought quite highly of himself and the finery that his life and talent had given him, but he could seemingly care less for the needs of others. He learned, "through the back door," that the second half of the Golden Rule, "to love our neighbor as ourself" is a necessity of life. Today, Saint James, following the lead and message of Jesus, tells us that we must never think that we are above or better than others; we are all sisters and brothers, members of the same Christian, even world family. All people deserve our respect. The Christian virtue of welcoming others allows us to welcome Christ. We have no option; this task is part and parcel of our Christian vocation.
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament demonstrates clearly that Jesus welcomed all people. No one was ever rejected; all were given a chance. Jesus freely associated with those people whom society shunned. Lepers, due not only to the contagious nature of their physical condition, but also their uncleanliness according to the Hebrew Law, were rejected by all, but not by Jesus. Saint Mark reports: "A leper came to him begging him and kneeling he said to him, ‘If you choose, you can make me clean.' Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!' Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean" (Mark 1:40-42).
We all recall the popular story (Luke 17:11-19) of the ten lepers who came to Jesus and were cured, yet only one, a Samaritan, returned to give thanks. Jesus also welcomed foreigners, even those who were despised by Hebrew society. Recall how amazed were both the Samaritan woman and Jesus' disciples when he entered into a long and significant conversation with her at Jacob's well (John 4:1-42). Jesus took the time necessary to welcome the sick and infirmed. Saint Luke reports, "As the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various kinds of diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on each of them and cured them" (Luke 4:40). Christ also reached out to those rejected by society. He called a tax collector, Matthew, to be a member of his inner circle. While scholars are not certain, tradition suggests that Jesus' friend Mary Magdalene, the first person to see him after the resurrection, was a former prostitute. Jesus summarized his preferential outreach to the marginalized of Hebrew society: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy not sacrifice.' For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners" (Luke 9:12b-13).
Jesus' message of love and peace was announced to a wide spectrum of people and it was delivered to create a unified society of mutual trust and love. In treating all with respect and rejecting none, Jesus demonstrated that unity and inclusivity were to be sought and division and exclusivity were to be avoided. The Lord put it this way, analogizing the unity of peoples to that of God: "I ask ... that all may be one. As you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me" (John 17:20-21).
Saint James, in direct and challenging words, takes the message of Jesus and applies it to his audience, "the twelve tribes in the dispersion." Apparently partiality and favoritism have been practiced for James immediately equates such behavior with a lack of belief in Jesus. Thus, consistent with his basic message of an action-oriented Christianity, namely to be doers of the word and not merely listeners, James attacks the problem through example. This illustration is one to which we can all can relate, now as well as the apostolic period. Yes, this very scene is happening in our churches today. We often make distinctions, creating separations and divisions based merely on what we observe or the previous opinions we have formed. We do this both with people we know and those we know not. We make decisions and classify some people and groups as acceptable while rejecting others. An ecumenical, inclusive spirit too often loses out to an exclusivist mentality and approach.
James tells us, however, that Jesus has preferentially chosen the poor and those on the margins of society. He writes, "Listen my brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?" (James 2:5). He says to distinguish between people, choosing some and rejecting others, dishonors the poor, the very ones to whom Jesus ministered in a preferential way. He goes on to say that partiality is sinful and, thus, must be avoided. He summarizes his teaching by returning to his basic premise of the need to live an active Christian life. We must not only respect all, but act on their behalf. Our actions toward the poor can truly make a difference. This reality is clearly demonstrated through a little story.
One day a businessman was rushing to a meeting. As he hurried along the sidewalk he passed a homeless man sitting on a bench with a pot of somewhat wilted flowers and a hat ready for donations. Feeling sorry for the man, he reached into his pocket and threw in about a dollar of change, but he took no flower. He continued down the sidewalk but was forced to stop at a traffic light. As he waited he thought, "That man was selling flowers and I did not take my purchase. I must return and take a flower." Although he might be late for his meeting, the man turned about and found the homeless flower salesman. "I apologize, my good man," said the businessman. "Your flowers are fairly priced and you have a good business. Please excuse my earlier lack of concern for your livelihood." The businessman then chose a flower and hurried off to his meeting.
One month later the same businessman was eating lunch with some clients in one of the city's finest restaurants. Unexpectedly one of the waiters came to him and said, "Sir, I am sure you do not remember me, but I will never forget you. One month ago you spoke to me as I sold flowers on the street. You restored my self-dignity and encouraged me to get my life in order. It is because of your faith in me that I have this job today."
When we welcome others and show them respect, we welcome Christ and honor him. Spanish-speaking peoples have an expression that illustrates this point: Mi casa es tu casa. Literally translated it means, "My house is your house," but these words do not adequately convey the significance of this greeting. It is not only an expression of welcome; the words express the reality that for the time guests are entertained in the house, they are members of the family and are treated as such. This is true regardless of who the guests are, their backgrounds, or past histories. All that matters is that they are under the roof of the house and, thus, very special. No one is left on the outside; all are welcomed as if they were Christ. We should not look upon others as strangers, foreigners or create any other categories. All that is necessary is to realize that they are God's children. To honor them is to honor Christ. We can have no greater privilege.
The preferential option for the poor and marginalized in society, seeing strength through diversity, has been a hallmark of many Christians in the twentieth century. Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist minister who worked in New York's "Hell's Kitchen" district at the outset of the twentieth century heard the cry of his people for justice and peace. He saw poverty firsthand and rallied to the support of his people. His response was more intellectual as he became a leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement through such famous books as Christianity and the Social Crisis and A Theology of the Social Gospel. One generation later, the Catholic radical, Dorothy Day, heard the cry of the poor and responded through the initiation of the Catholic Worker Movement, which featured houses of hospitality to shelter and feed the homeless, and its penny newspaper, The Catholic Worker, which even today stridently promotes the rights of the poor. Dorothy Day's outreach to the marginalized of society was patterned after scripture. In the Letter to the Hebrews we read, "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it" (Hebrews 13:2).
It is sad but true that many times we, as individuals and a society, live life in a manner completely contradictory to the message of Saint James. We separate and discriminate on many levels and various criteria. We separate people on the basis of intelligence, appearance, and personal habits. Only those who are sufficiently bright, beautiful or handsome, and sophisticated are acceptable; others are given the proverbial dirty eclair. We make distinctions based on political and religious views and ideologies. Again, some are acceptable and others are not. We categorize and separate ourselves based on physical and mental condition, ethnic and racial origins, and even cultural views.
Our tendency to be exclusive occurs not only in our relationships with those who are different; it also happens with those who, at least on the surface, are in "our own group." Believe it or not much of our attitude can be explained by observation of how dogs treat each other. One day a woman observed an interesting occurrence. She began her story: "There was a terrible racket outside my home and I went to the window to see what was happening. I saw a large dog standing outside the front yard fence and my dog was barking wildly at it. Have you ever noticed how the dog on the inside usually barks wildly if another dog passes by outside, yet, the dog on the outside does not bark at all? I guess that is the way it is with dogs."
The woman continued saying, "I knew that the dog outside belonged to a neighbor, so I went outside and opened the gate. Almost instantly the barking stopped. There was some sniffing as they wanted to make sure of each other, but then the two dogs proceeded to ignore each other. I guess that is the way is it with dogs."
She then continued in a reflective mode, "It seems that the way the dogs act is the way church members act as well. The ones outside never bark, but the ones inside often bark angrily at those not on the inside with them. However, after they come inside and we are familiar with them, we come to completely ignore them, unless they happen to be in our social crowd." She thought, "It would be nice if we changed the rules and stopped acting like dogs. Wouldn't it be better if we extended our hands and were friendly to those on the outside? Wouldn't it be so much better if we did not ignore each other, except for the occasional sniff or handshake at church or greeting during a holiday?
"Just think how many broken hearts would be mended, how many tears dried if we cared enough to notice and to share a bit of genuine love. It's too bad that more love can be generated by a puppy wagging its tail to cheer one up than what we do. But I guess that's the way it is with dogs! What about us?"
James provides us with a significant challenge — to actualize the second half of the Golden Rule. We are called to live an active faith by seeking to accept all. Moreover, we are told to have a preferential option for the poor and those who need our attention the most — those, in other words, who need a doctor. Let us learn this lesson well. May we give others the best we have and not a leftover dirty eclair. If we can our reward in heaven will be great.
CSS Publishing Company, Inc., Sermons on the Second Reading: Sermons for Sundays after Pentecost (Middle Third), Jesus Is the Recipe for External Life, by Richard Gribble
Overview: Having twice, and briefly, covered the three subjects of trials and temptations, wisdom in our speech, and riches and poverty, Paul now expands on these subjects throughout the rest of the letter: 2:1–5:18.
2:1–26 · Riches and Poverty
3:1–4:17 · Wisdom through Actions not Words
5:1–20 · Trials and Temptations
James condemns the favoritism some believers are showing toward the rich while discriminating against the poor (2:1–4). He condemns favoritism because many who are rich in faith and who love the Lord come from the lower classes (2:5). These believers should not be despised or defrauded by the wealthy, the very ones who overpower them in court and slander the name of Christ (2:6–7). In addition, the law condemns favoritism, and those who show favoritism are actually lawbreakers (…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5 Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
This section of the letter has one central purpose: to condemn any practice of favoritism in the church. “Favoritism” translates a rare word that is used by the New Testament writers to render the Old Testament Hebrew expression “receiving the face.” It connotes the treatment of any person on the basis of an external consideration—be it race, nationality, wealth, or manner of dress. Such favoritism is foreign to the nature of God (cf. Rom. 2:11) and should also be unknown among believers in Christ (2:1). James’s lofty description of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel (Christ), the Lord, and the glorious one (or, less probably, “the glory,” alluding to the Shekinah, the presence of God) shows just how exalted is his conception of Jesus. The illustration James uses in verses 2–3 need not refer to an actual situation but certainly implies that this kind of behavior was a real problem. Poor people were being discriminated against; and in doing so, James says, the believers manifest their evil thoughts (2:4). James’s use of the word “synagogue” (NIV “meeting,” 2:2) may imply that he is thinking of a nonworship gathering of the church (perhaps for the purpose of judging between believers; see Ward), but it is more likely that this is a primitive Jewish-Christian term for the church’s gathering for worship.
James gives several reasons for his condemnation of favoritism against the poor. The first is that it stands in contradiction to God’s own attitude and actions. He has chosen the poor in the world to receive the blessings of his kingdom (2:5). Note that James does not say that God has chosen all the poor or only the poor but that God has a special concern for the poor (cf. Luke 6:20). It seems to be the case that most of the early Christians were, in fact, poor (1Cor. 1:26). The second reason James gives for condemning this favoritism has to do with the actual situation. The rich people were exploiting and persecuting the fledgling church. How ironic that the church should mistreat those from whom most of them were drawn in order to curry favor with the wealthy and powerful (2:6–7).
The third basis on which favoritism is criticized is also the most important: it violates the “royal law” of love for the neighbor. Jesus himself cited Leviticus 19:18, along with the requirement to love God, when asked to give a summary of the law (Matt. 22:34–40), and it is probably for this reason that James calls it the royal law: it was highlighted by Jesus, the king, as a crucial law for the kingdom of God (2:5). Favoritism, then, by mistreating “your neighbor,” involves a clear violation of the law (2:9). Significantly, favoritism at the expense of the poor is also condemned in the context of Leviticus 19:18 (cf. 19:15). Verses 10–11 support the conclusion reached in verse 9, that those who show favoritism are convicted as lawbreakers, by arguing that the infringement of any one law incurs the penalty for the breaking of the whole law. This is so because the law is the expression of God’s demand; ultimately, one either meets or fails to meet that demand—there can be no partial perfection. Therefore, James concludes, we had better speak and act with the realization that our conduct will be measured by the standard of “the law that gives freedom” (2:12). James’s Christian understanding of the law is implied here again by this description (see also James 1:25). There is law in the Christian life, but it is not identical with the Old Testament law, which itself was fulfilled by Christ (Matt. 5:17) and can no longer condemn the believer (Rom. 8:1–3). The “royal law” will, however, judge the believer in the sense that we will appear before Christ for an evaluation of our earthly behavior (cf. 2Cor. 5:10). On that day, mercy will be an important evidence of the reality of our relationship to God, even as Jesus stressed in his parable of the unmerciful servant (2:13; cf. Matt. 18:21–35).
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Prejudice and the Poor
In chapter 2 James expands upon the theme of worldliness and the care of widows. Worldliness shows up not only as personal ambition but also in a church’s paying regard to someone’s worldly power and position rather than dealing only on the basis of that person’s spiritual position in Christ. This issue, in turn, leads to the statement of the need for generosity and to a warning against a complacent orthodoxy that stops short of gospel obedience (2:14–26).
2:1 My brothers recognizes the readers’ status as church members. Don’t show favoritism: Despite the fact that God shows no partiality (Deut. 10:17; Gal. 2:6), human beings who serve under his authority and supposedly copy his character must be continually warned against being partial (e.g., Deut. 1:17; Lev. 19:15; Ps. 82:2; Prov. 6:35; 18:5). A glance at who is elected to office in the church and who sits on denominational committees would quickly indicate that despite the very negative view Jesus took of wealth (e.g., Mark 10), James’ reproof is still relevant today. The church ought to show no partiality, no concern about the outward beauty, wealth, or power of a person.
This is demanded of us as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. The only basis of the church is faith in a single Lord. Belief and commitment save rich and poor alike, and all pledge allegiance to a Lord whose life and teaching ignored, if not despised, worldly position. Furthermore, this Lord is living, exalted, glorious; he will return to manifest his glory and judge the world. Partiality is a violation of his character and an insult to him; it is therefore a serious sin.
2:2–4 Having stated his topic, James gives an example based on realistic (even if hypothetical) events in the church. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes: The words describe a person walking in, neatly dressed in clean (lit., “shining”) clothes. The gold ring on his finger announces his wealth. One can feel the uneasy deference of the group already present. Next, a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. He owns only one set of clothes, so they are filthy rags. Used to being rejected, he slinks in the door only to feel those assembled draw back from him as he expected; the trashy state of his clothes declares him to be human trash, of no value in worldly terms.
The church responds to the economic status of the rich man: Here’s a good seat for you. He eases himself into the most comfortable chair, to the warm smiles of all present. The poor man, however, receives only a cold You stand there, or Sit on the floor by my feet. The room is crowded; let him reverence his betters by standing, or even sitting at their feet. Most of those present, of course, try not to even notice him.
What makes this treatment even worse is that the two parties pictured are at a judicial gathering, a church court assembled to try a dispute between them. The details of differing clothes and standing and sitting can be paralleled in Jewish judicial practice. First Corinthians 6:1–11 mentions that such assemblies, which would have legal authority since at this time the church was viewed as a sect of Judaism and Jewish synagogues, had authority to set up their own courts (beth-din) and impose fines or beatings. Certainly in other situations (e.g., worship), posture in church meetings would be uniform (all would sit or stand) and a person’s role would be more carefully prescribed. But these two Christians have a dispute, and one thing is clear to the church from the start: the wealthy man must not be offended.
James condemns this behavior on two grounds. First, you have discriminated among yourselves. Christ had made them all one: In him there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female; but all are one, one new person in Christ (Gal. 3:28). They, however, are conveniently ignoring this fact and distinguishing on the basis of wealth and status in the world, denying the practical effect of Christ’s work.
Second, they have become judges with evil thoughts. A host of Old Testament passages warns against judicial prejudice, for example: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly” (Lev. 19:15). If, as the Old Testament claims, God is an impartial judge and if they claim to judge according to his standards, how dare they act unjustly, prejudicing their decision in favor of the rich man because they covet his wealth and power?
While looking at the specific example James gives, however, one must not ignore the wider application. Would he be any happier if the poor person were cold-shouldered in a worship meeting? Would the poor person be any less wronged if the preferential treatment were given the rich in the choice for office in the church? Or would the discrimination be any less glaring if the pastoral staff listened carefully to “prime donors” but brushed aside the suggestions of the poor? As specific as the example is, it functions as a general condemnation of discriminatory behavior.
2:5 James begins his logical attack on the practice (2:5–7) with a plea, Listen, my dear brothers, calling to their attention that he is referring to something they already know: Has not God chosen those who are poor? James uses the familiar election terminology of Israel (Deut. 4:37; 7:7) and the church (Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:9), but he applies it specifically to the poor. Most of the members of the early church were poor (“few of you were wise or powerful or of high social standing” [1 Cor. 1:26]), and the Jerusalem church was especially poor (2 Cor. 8:9); but James is saying more than this. God particularly elected those who are poor in the eyes of the world (for it is only with respect to the world’s values that they are poor) to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him. On the one hand, this makes the poor virtually identical to the one who endures in 1:12, for both receive what God promised those who love him. On the other hand, James is applying the teaching of Jesus, for it was Jesus who said he came particularly “to preach good news [or the gospel] to the poor” (Luke 4:18) and who further said, “Blessed are you who are poor; for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). Jesus selected the poor as the special recipients of his kingdom; James picks up this idea adding those who love him to limit the promise to the poor who respond to the good news. If there are any favorites in God’s eyes, they are the poor, for God has a very different way of viewing them than the world has. The world sees them as poor, unimportant, but God sees them as rich (in faith) and heirs of the Kingdom, a reversal of perspective.
2:6–7 The church lacks God’s perspective: You have insulted the poor. God condemns the same crime in the Old Testament (e.g., Prov. 14:21; cf. Sirach 10:22). The church that shames the poor in any way (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:22) has stepped outside of God’s will and no longer acts on behalf of God.
The church, however, has shown preference for the rich class, who are its oppressors. First, it is the rich who are exploiting you. The idea of the wealthy and powerful exploiting the poor and weak is deeply rooted in the Old Testament (Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Ezek. 18:7; Amos 4:1; 8:4; Mal. 3:5). The poor person needed a loan and the rich gave it to him—for a price (despite the fact that taking interest, i.e., profiting from another’s need, was forbidden, e.g., Exod. 22:25–26). If there was a dispute, the rich man hired the best lawyer. They set up society so that the poor got poorer, and the rich richer.
Second, they are dragging you into court. When the poor could not repay a loan, the rich dragged them into court to foreclose. Or they may have brought charges of libel against those who complained, or perhaps they even accused the Christians of disturbing the peace and order of the community. In all these ways, Christians experienced some persecution that was simply oppression of all poor by the rich, but sometimes they were singled out because their religion made them especially vulnerable—what judge felt bad about being especially hard on the followers of the despised Galilean?
Third, the rich are … the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong. Now James adds a specifically religious charge. The name of Jesus was given to Christians, or (more literally) called over them at baptism. They now belong to him, and he was their Lord. But the rich were speaking evil of this name, either by making fun of Jesus or by insulting his followers. It is not clear whether they were doing this in court as part of their oppression or whether they were insulting Christ in the synagogues and markets. Neither action would have been righteous.
The church, however, had also chosen to insult the poor (whom God honors), and by the same action it had chosen to favor the rich and thus to identify with the oppressing class. It is often the case that an oppressed group takes on the characteristics of its oppressors; when this happens to the church, it is not just pathetically ironic but is a moral reversal, for the people who name the name of Christ are now acting like the people who blaspheme the name of Christ.
2:8–9 James now proceeds to the biblical argument: If you really keep the royal (i.e., of the kingdom) law … you are doing right. The kingdom in this context (cf. 2:5) is the kingdom of God. While the full glory of this kingdom is still future, the Christian has already entered it and stands under its authority. The law of the kingdom is the Old Testament as interpreted and edited by Jesus, as in Matthew 5–6. To say that one is doing right when he or she obeys Jesus’ law is a massive understatement: Jesus himself presents his teaching as a matter of life and death (Matt. 7:13–27).
The law is found in Scripture, for Jesus generally interpreted the Old Testament rather than speaking without any reference to previous revelation. The specific command that James cites, Love your neighbor as yourself, is a favorite of both Jesus (he cites Lev. 19:18 six times in the synoptic Gospels) and the church (Rom. 13:19; Gal. 5:14). It was frequently seen as summing up the law, but James’ reason for citing it may be in Proverbs 14:21: “He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy (poor).” The poor person is, according to scripture, the neighbor they should love. But these Christians are showing favoritism; they are discriminating against the poor, and this is to break this commandment, for it is all connected, as the apocryphal Jewish Testament of Issachar states (in 5:2), “Love the Lord and your neighbor and have compassion on the poor and feeble.”
Therefore they sin. Their actions are not unfortunate or regrettable or something they should not have done, but simply sin. James is not afraid to use a stark, piercing word to underline the situation, for beating around the bush does not lead to repentance. They are convicted by the law as lawbreakers: In this phrase one has a picture of God’s last judgment. The person in the dock sees not James, but the personified Law itself, stand up, point its accusing finger, and state, “That person is a transgressor.” Such a charge is serious, for Jewish Christians knew that to knowingly transgress the law invited God’s judgment upon them.
2:10 The reason behind this conclusion is a truism: Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. The statement does not mean that it is just as bad no matter which commandment one breaks (e.g., stealing a shoe is as bad as murder) but rather that if one breaks a law one demonstrates an underlying attitude toward the lawgiver and thus is simply a criminal. Deuteronomy 27:26 puts it this way, “Cursed is the [one] who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” The particular offense may have been more or less serious, but the person stands under a curse whichever commandment he or she has broken. James’ argument is important in that he is showing that the rebellion against God is more important than the specific act and that no deliberate transgression of God’s teachings is unimportant.
2:11 James illustrates his point using two well-known laws (Exod. 20:13–14; Deut. 5:17–18). For he, that is, God, gave both laws. Thus though a Mafia hit man, for example, may pride himself on his marital fidelity while he murders, this does not excuse him in any way before God. He is still simply a lawbreaker.
The choice of the two laws may also be significant. Although it is less likely that adultery is referring to their adultery with the world (wealth) in 4:4, the reversed order and the fact that in biblical and Jewish tradition murder was often connected to the failure to love one’s neighbor or care for the poor may be a sign that their discrimination against the poor brings them under this very charge. If you do … commit murder may not be entirely hypothetical in James’ mind.
2:12 James’ conclusion sums up his biblical argument. In all one’s actions one should keep the final judgment in mind. The word pair speak and act covers all human behavior (cf. Acts 1:1; 7:22; 1 John 3:18). And both speech and action appear in his example (2:2–4). The command to look at all behavior in the light of judgment fits the situation excellently.
The standard of judgment is the law gives freedom, or the law of liberty. The idea has already been mentioned in 1:25, where obedience to this perfect law brings blessing. It is the same as the law of the kingdom of 2:8, namely, the Old Testament as interpreted by Jesus, which will be the standard of judgment (cf. Matt. 7:15–23; Luke 6:43–45). James does not think of this as a forbidding concept, for this law is freeing in that it points away from the bondage of sin and shows the way of life.
2:13 To back up this argument from scripture (i.e., because) and to begin to shift the focus to the next section, James adds a proverbial saying: judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. God is merciful, as any reader of the Old Testament should know. Exodus 34:5–6 states that when God revealed to Moses his nature and pronounced his name he described himself as “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness” (cf. Deut. 4:31; Ps. 103:8–14, which connects this to his judging “in favor of the oppressed”). If this is God’s personal standard of righteousness, then it follows that his true followers should copy him. “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, cf. Hos. 4:1; 6:6; 12:6; Prov. 14:21; Dan. 4:27). Or again, “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.’” (Zech. 7:9). Not to show mercy is to step outside of God’s covenant and to invite God in return to judge by the same strict standard.
This teaching was made even more explicit in the intertestamental and rabbinic periods. Sirach states, “Does [a person] have no mercy toward a man like himself and yet pray for his own sins?” (Sirach 28:4; cf. 27:30–28:7; Tobit 4:9–11; Testament of Zebulun 8:8), and “Rabbi Barabbi said, ‘To him who is merciful to the created, Heaven is merciful, but to him who is unmerciful to the created, Heaven is also unmerciful’” (b. Shabbath 151b).
Jesus taught, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). This is underlined in his teaching on forgiveness (Matt. 6:14–15), his response to the Pharisees (Matt. 12:7, quoting Hos. 6:6), his parable on forgiveness (Matt. 18:21–35), and his parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31–46). Therefore it is the unified witness of the Gospels that Jesus followed standard Jewish teaching and taught that God would show mercy only to those obeying him and doing likewise.
James’ use of this saying shows that he had learned Jesus’ tradition carefully, for it becomes his clinching argument. Even if the logical and biblical arguments have not convinced the reader that justice and love demand that the poor be treated honorably, then the Christian must still honor the poor person out of mercy and the fear of God’s judgment.
Furthermore, mercy triumphs over judgment! This is the positive side of the proverb. It is—as the parables of Jesus cited above show—mercy, that is, a person’s faithful submission and obedience to God, that conquers judgment. This cuts two ways, for the mercy will destroy both one’s judging of others and God’s judgment of oneself.
Significant in the choice of words here is the fact that mercy in scripture is not simply charitable evaluation of others but caring for the poor, that is, charity. This not only reflects the previous section of honoring the poor but asks why the Christians were not themselves caring for the poor.
James now focuses on charity and its relevance to faith within the overall topic of the care and appreciation of the poor. The structure is parallel to 2:1–13: in each section James opens with a topic verse, then has an example, a logical argument, and a two-part biblical argument.
2:14 My brothers indicates a new departure in the argument. What good is it … if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? The question is purely rhetorical. The form of the question implies James’ expectation of a negative answer: No good at all!
The situation is that of saying one has faith but lacking deeds. In this passage, faith has a special meaning for James, that is, orthodox belief conventionally expressed (like “religion” in 1:26). This person can pass the test of orthodoxy, asserting belief in Jesus as Savior. The problem is that his or her lifestyle is identical to that of Jewish (or pagan) neighbors (except for the form of worship): there is no evident self-giving, no detachment from and sharing of wealth. James’ response is, What good is it?
Again James asks, Can such faith save him? The form of this second question also implies the negative answer. There is no salvation for the person who stops short of discipleship. If faith is only intellectual, only expressed in religious practices, it will not save. The Old Testament also condemns piety without action, as do John the Baptist (Luke 3:7–14), Jesus (Matt. 7:15–27), and Paul (Rom. 1:5; 2:6–8; 6:17–18; Gal. 6:4–6). James follows the rest of scripture: faith without actions (discipleship) will never save.
2:15 James clarifies his point with an example: Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. James does not pick a hard situation. This is not a case of someone outside the Christian faith (so there can be no “Do you expect us to feed the whole world?” response), nor is this a case of a need in a distant church (like Paul’s collection for Jerusalem). This is someone in the community (a brother or sister) who clearly has a need, for the person needs clothes (either lacking the outer garment that was worn in public places and kept one warm at night or else having clothes in such a ragged condition that they could keep no one warm) and does not have daily food. The example, while hypothetical (suppose) is both demanding and realistic, for in a marginal society like that in the New Testament it was not unusual for people to lack basic necessities. In fact, in the 40s and 50s famine and starvation conditions hit Judea repeatedly.
2:16 If one of you says to him: This indicates the response of a member of the church: The member of the church who is impoverished has come to another member, and that Christian is turning the brother or sister down.
The words are very pious: I wish you well is a standard farewell in the Jewish church; keep warm and well fed shows that the material needs of the person have been recognized—the expression is probably a prayer. But if you do nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? James assumes that the Christian could do more than pray; he or she owns two garments and more than enough food for the day. Simple obedience to the gospel teaching on sharing could supply the need, but the resort to prayer salved the conscience and covered up the fact that the cupboard and closet were shut. Such prayers are useless.
2:17 In the same way, faith: The example was a specific example of orthodox language and intellectual belief without gospel obedience. The same is true for intellectual belief in general; if it remains a pious conviction (by itself) and fails to result in obedience to the commands of Christ (not accompanied by action), it is totally unprofitable (dead). For Paul it was only “faith expressing itself through love” that mattered (Gal. 5:6), rather than religious ritual works. For James it is faith that leads to action that saves. Action (obedience to Christ) is no more an “added extra” or a higher optional level of sanctification than breath is an “added extra” to a body (cf. 1:26; 2:14; 2:20; and 2:26).
2:18 Having given the example, James proceeds to argue his case, employing the lively style of imaginative dialogue, which was as popular with preachers of all types then as it is today.
But someone will say means that just as Paul anticipates an objection in 1 Corinthians 15:35 or Romans 9:19 so James anticipates one here. The objection is: You have faith; I have deeds, in other words, the claim that faith and action are different gifts. Did not Paul write about varieties of gifts but the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4–10)? Faith is a gift and so is charity (Rom. 12:8). Is there any reason for one to suspect that faith and action would come together in the same person any more than healing and tongues or prophecy and evangelism?
James answers with a demand that is common to this kind of speech: Show me [or “prove to me”] your faith without deeds. A better translation would be “Prove your faith without action.” This demand is impossible to meet. Like a horse that cannot be seen, smelled, touched, or ridden, that eats invisible grass and leaves no mark on the ground, such faith is indemonstrable and suspect. Faith is seen in lifestyle, or as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2, “If I had all … faith but had not love, I am nothing.”
On the other hand, I will show you my faith by what I do. Though a claim to faith without resultant life is suspect, so conversely Christian action demands one posit a motivation behind it. No one lives like Jesus without faith in Jesus. The sermon preached by a life of action does not need to buttonhole people to get a hearing; instead, people hearing the unwritten sermon of action request an explanation in terms of the faith that motivates it.
2:19 James has not yet put to rest the specter of dead orthodoxy, so he turns to the assertion of belief itself and accepts it at face value. You believe that there is one God. Good! This is the most basic teaching of Judaism and Christianity, being the first part of the Shema. This confession of faith was recited two times a day by every Pharisaic Jew, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut. 6:4–5; the fullest form of the Shema included Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41). Such a confession of faith was a starting place for Christians as well, for Jesus had referred to it as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28–34). Paul would assert “there is only one God” (Rom. 3:30). Hermas would later write that the most basic tenet of Christianity is “First of all, believe that God is one” (Mandate 1). So although Christians believe more than this, this belief is the starting point.
But James’ praise is partly tongue-in-cheek: Even the demons believe that—and shudder. The orthodoxy of the demons was well known not only in Judaism but also in the New Testament, where the demons frequently give fuller confessions of Christ than the apostles (Mark 1:24; 5:7; Acts 16:17; 19:15). Their problem is that their response to the name of God (the reminder of their orthodox knowledge) is to shudder, because they are in rebellion against that God. All their orthodox knowledge simply makes them tremble, for their “faith” does not lead to obedient action. Likewise, those who can only claim an orthodox confession of faith are doing no better than Satan if they have not committed themselves to lives of obedience.
2:20 James has completed his theological argument but will add concrete scriptural illustrations. Before citing these passages he adds (as was common in the homiletic style of the day): You foolish man. The address seems strong—hardly polite—and it is, as the term fool indicates, not primarily an intellectual error, but a moral error. Yet the strong language was normal for that day: One need only cite Jesus (Matt. 23:17; Luke 24:25) or Paul (1 Cor. 15:36; Gal. 3:1) to be able to guess accurately that Jewish teachers of all types and Greek teachers as well used similar language.
The content of the appeal is almost equally strong: Do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? This suggests that it is the person’s willful ignorance that is demanding more proof and may make it impossible to accept the proof. A searching mind receives evidence quickly, but the willfully ignorant can never be shown enough evidence. Yet James makes the charitable assumption and continues the discussion.
2:21 The first character discussed is our ancestor Abraham. A gentile Christian could have written this expression, thinking of the church as the New Israel (Rom. 4; Gal. 2:7, 29), but it is more likely the unconscious reference of a Jewish Christian. Yet, in a sense, Abraham is the father of all the faithful, and the reference fits all Christians.
Abraham was considered righteous. With this translation the NIV correctly differentiates James’ terminology from that of Paul. James uses the standard meaning of this term, “declared right by God” or “considered righteous by God”, whereas Paul uses the same language in a unique way (“make [a sinner] right”). James’ meaning clearly flows from the Old Testament passage which lies behind his conclusion, Genesis 22:12, in which God says, “Now I know that you fear God,” the “now I know” being the declaration of righteousness. (This difference in meaning, of course, is another indication that James had not had contact with Paul’s work.)
The basis of the declaration was actions: It was for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. Abraham’s faith in God was real because it governed Abraham’s life. The word what he did is plural, because in selecting the offering of Isaac James points to the Jewish tradition in which this was the capstone of all Abraham’s actions. “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc. 2:52). The tests referred to are a series of ten tests, culminating in the sacrifice of Isaac, which were Abraham’s works of charity: “Abraham woke up charity which slept. For he opened an inn, and received within it the passersby” (Midrash on Psalms on Ps. 110:1). The basis of his legendary charity was Genesis 18 as interpreted by tradition. Thus Genesis 15:6 was seen as an anticipatory declaration in the light of subsequent action revealing true faith. The declaration of righteousness comes in two ways: First is the fact that God inexplicably aborts the sacrifice, as this later Jewish story illustrates:
The angels then broke into loud weeping, and they exclaimed: “The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth, he [God] hath broken the covenant. Where is the regard of Abraham, he who took the wayfarers into his house, gave them food and drink, and went with them to bring them on their way?… for the slaughtering knife is set upon his throat.” [Then God in response acknowledges Abraham’s righteousness by ordering him to stop.]
Second is the “now I know” statement of Genesis 22:12; Abraham had a lived-out faith that had resulted in righteous actions that in turn were declared right by God.
2:22 James continues: You see. Surely the point of the passages cited was clear; His faith and his actions were working together. (Or, “his faith worked with his actions.”) But where did the faith come from? The answer lies in the Jewish traditions about Abraham. These asserted that Abraham, who lived in an idolatrous culture, had contemplated nature, and this had led him to the one God. He had rejected idolatry, burned the local house of gods, and committed himself to the one God (the story is narrated in the apocryphal book of Jubilees 11–12). Thus Abraham was the originator of the creed “there is one God” (James 2:19).
Given this background, it is clear that a Jewish Christian would understand how faith and actions worked together. Unlike Terah in the legends, who agrees with Abraham’s faith but through fear of the people tells Abraham to keep quiet and hold this faith in his heart, Abraham acts consistently with his faith. His faith works with or directs his actions.
Furthermore, his faith was made complete by what he did. The idea is not that faith was perfected in the sense of it having been less than faith before, but that faith is brought to maturity through action (cf. 1:4, 15). There is a mutuality: Faith informs and motivates action; action matures faith. James is not rejecting one for the other but is instead insisting that the two are totally inseparable.
2:23 James draws two conclusions. First, and the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Although Paul also cites this passage (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6), he and James interpret it differently. For Paul the point is that Abraham believed God and was declared righteous before he was circumcised and thus before keeping the ritual law. James (like 1 Macc. 2:52) sees the two parts of the sentence as separate statements. The first is Abraham believed God, or “had faith in God.” That was true; all Jewish tradition witnessed to his belief that God is one. The second is it was credited to him as righteousness, or better, “God declared him righteous.” This was also true. Abraham expressed his faith at every turn, whether in welcoming strangers (charity), refusing reward from the king of Sodom, or offering his son Isaac. Thus both parts of the sentence are true, and the scripture in Genesis makes the same point about Abraham as James has been arguing.
The second conclusion is and he was called God’s friend. Unlike the first conclusion, this is not a direct biblical quotation but a rough paraphrase of the sense of Isaiah 41:8 or 2 Chronicles 20:7. Its significance is that the Jews connected the title “friend” with Abraham’s faithfulness and obedience under testing. Thus the apocryphal Jewish work Jubilees, after recounting the completion of the tenth test of Abraham, concludes, “he was found faithful, and was recorded on the heavenly tablets as the friend of God” (19:9). In harmony with this idea, James points out that the fact that God refers to Abraham as a friend also shows that he had more than an intellectual faith; he had an active faithfulness expressed in obedience.
2:24 James summarizes: You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. This summary, which is addressed to the “my brothers” of 2:14, not the objector of 2:18, causes a problem, for it appears that James is contradicting Paul, who writes in Romans 3:28, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (cf. Rom. 3:20; 4:16). This problem can be resolved by careful interpretation.
First, by what he does means for James works of love and charity (as in 1:27), whereas Paul is always concerned about “observing the law,” meaning specifically the ritual law, for example, circumcision, dietary regulations, sacrifices. Paul expected every Christian to do works of love and charity (e.g., Eph. 2:10; Gal. 6:9–10) and also believed that those who failed to follow through in this area were not among the “saved” (e.g., Gal. 5:19–21; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Rom. 1:28–32).
Second, a person is justified is a poor translation (unlike that in 2:21 above), for it reads the Pauline meaning of this term (the forgiveness which repentant sinners receive at God’s judgment seat when they put their trust in Christ) into James. James is still using the older and more standard meaning of the term, “a person is declared to be righteous by God” or “is considered righteous by God” and this “on the basis on what he does” (and not on the basis of what ideas he agrees to).
Third, not by faith alone means for James “by intellectual belief that God is one” or “that Jesus is Lord,” whereas faith for Paul means personal commitment to Christ that leads inevitably to obedience because one is convinced that Jesus is Lord. For Paul the concern is to prove that one is not “saved” by ritual actions (“observing the law,” or the “works of the law”). He would never consider separating faith and actions the way James does, except to refute such a separation (e.g., Rom. 6–8). Therefore, though Paul uses “alone” with ritual works (Rom. 4:16), James uses it with faith to show its illegitimate total separation from action.
James’ point is that God will not approve a person just because he or she is very orthodox or can pass a test in systematic theology. He will declare someone righteous only if this faith is such that the person acts on it and produces the natural result of commitment, obedient action. With such a point Paul would not disagree.
2:25 James continues, introducing a second illustration, Rahab the prostitute, whose words and actions in Joshua 2:1–21 fascinated the Jews as well as the early Christians (Heb. 11:31). Again the translation considered righteous is the correct one. Again there is a faith-action combination. Rahab had faith, for in Joshua 2:9–10 she confesses a faith that came from reflection on what God had done for Israel. But her faith was not enough to deliver her; she had to act by giving lodging to the spies and then sending them off in a different direction, which meant risking her life. Hebrews 11:31 similarly stresses faith-motivated action: “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” Faith alone would not have saved her, but when faith led to action the spies declared her righteous. She became one of the promised people and an ancestor of David (and Jesus) because her faith was that of committed action, not intellectual reflection.
2:26 With so, James welds together the themes of 2:14 and 2:17 to form a concluding verse: As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. A body without spirit (or breath) is a corpse. Jews were aware that it was when a person “breathed his last” or “gave up his spirit” (the words for breath and spirit being identical in both Greek and Hebrew) he was dead (John 19:30; Luke 23:46; Ecclesiastes 3:21; 8:8; 9:5). A dead body is a liability that must be buried. Likewise faith that remains intellectual belief is dead. It cannot save; it is a liability, for it can deceive a person as to his or her true spiritual state. Only when faith becomes full commitment and is joined to actions does it have value.
Additional Notes
2:1 The term for partiality (prosōpolēmpsia) was coined by the Christian ethical tradition on the basis of the Old Testament statements about God and applied especially to God’s judgment (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17). See further E. Lohse, “Prosōpolēmpsia,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 779–80.
The phrase our glorious Lord Jesus Christ is awkward Greek. S. S. Laws, James, pp. 95–97; and J. B. Mayor, James, pp. 80–82, argue for a titular use parallel to John 14:6, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.” Some ancient translations believe the faith is what is glorious, i.e., “the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The translation that this commentary prefers, on the analogy of Eph. 6:24 and James 1:25, is that of the NIV our glorious Lord Jesus Christ (see further M. Dibelius, James, p. 128; J. H. Ropes, James, p. 187). If this is the correct interpretation then Christ is seen as the expression of God’s own glory, which surrounded his presence in the Old Testament, particularly when he acted to save Israel. In the New Testament this reference is especially applied to God’s coming salvation of his people, i.e., his eschatological deliverance (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; John 1:14; 17:5; Rom. 8:17; 1 Cor. 2:8; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:13). By using this term James removes his readers’ focus from their present situation and reminds them that the present world is transitory. See further S. Aalen, “Glory, Honor,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 44–48.
On Jesus and the Bible’s attitude toward wealth see further R. Sider, Cry Justice (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), pp. 124–46.
2:2 The rich man in the example is never called rich in the Greek text. He is simply referred to as a person with a gold ring and fine clothes, from which his wealth is correctly inferred. James never uses the Greek word for rich (plousios) when writing about wealthy Christians (cf. 4:13–17) but does when referring to pagans (1:10–11; 2:6; 5:1–6). The rich are by definition outside the kingdom (cf. Luke 6:24). The other person, however, is expressly called poor (ptōchos), for that is almost a title for the Christian community (cf. 2:5).
The person enters your meeting; James uses synagōgē instead of the usual term for church, ekklēsia (5:14). Synagōgē occasionally refers to Christian gatherings until the time of Ignatius and Hermas (Mandate 11.9, 13–14) as W. Schrage, “Synagōgē,” TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 840–41 shows, but it is unusual, being chosen because James is not referring to an assembly for worship but to a special assembly. The word itself means a gathering.
It is in Jewish sources that one reads of the importance of similar clothing and posture in judicial assemblies (e.g., Deut. Rabba 5:6 on Deut. 16:19; b. Shebuot 30a; 31a; t. Sanhedrin 6:2; Aboth de R. Nathan 1:10; Sipra Kedoshim 4:4 on Lev. 19:15). For further data see R. B. Ward, “Partiality in the Assembly.”
2:4 Have you not discriminated …? is in some translations phrased as a statement rather than a question. The Greek text does have a question, but the form of the question makes it clear that he is not really expressing doubt but making his charge in interrogative form.
Become judges with evil thoughts can be translated “evilly motivated judges” like the “unjust judge” of Luke 18:6. Cf. the Jewish condemnation of such behavior: e.g., Prov. 18:5; Psalms of Solomon 2:18; b. Berakoth 6a.
2:5 God’s election of Israel is further discussed by L. Coenen, “Elect,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 539–42.
God’s interest in the poor was not only a major part of the Old Testament tradition (e.g., Deut. 15; Prov. 19:17; Ps. 35:10) but also very much a part of the intertestamental period; e.g., 1 Enoch 108:7–15; Psalms of Solomon 5; Gen. Rabba 71:1. See further E. Bammel, “Ptōchos,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 895–98; R. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977), pp. 59–86; R. Foster, The Freedom of Simplicity (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), pp. 15–51.
The promise of the kingdom of God to the poor is found throughout the New Testament, e.g., Matt. 5:3, where “poor in spirit” should be interpreted as those poor who have the proper spirit of dependence on God; it cannot be expanded to include people who have no real needs in life. The kingdom is further discussed in Matt. 25:34; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:21. In all these cases the kingdom is equivalent to salvation. See further G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 57–69.
2:6 In making his charges against the rich, James again uses rhetorical questions expecting a positive answer, which the NIV has correctly restructured into question-and-answer form.
Note the shift of number that happens in this verse. They dishonor the poor person (singular). This person is one of their own group, an individual. But the rich are a class (plural), a group outside the church. At this point the author shifts to the word “rich” (plousios, cf. 2:2), for he is not referring to a wealthy individual in the church but to an oppressing class that the church as a group is imitating.
When the Old Testament speaks of “oppression,” e.g., Ezek. 22:7, 29; Heb. 1:4; Zech. 7:10, it rarely calls the oppressor “the rich” but normally uses the term “the violent.” However, it is clear that the oppressors are invariably wealthy and powerful. Thus it is not surprising to see a shift in later Judaism and the New Testament to identify the term “rich” with oppression. See further E. Bammel, “Ptōchos,” TDNT, vol. 6, p. 888.
The idea of dragging one before the judges is not a use of the usual term for arresting a person. It indicated injustice or persecution, as in Acts 16:19; 21:20.
2:8 Some see the royal law as a Jewish reference to the kingship of Yahweh. Others, e.g., Dibelius, James, p. 143, view it as a law having sovereign authority, citing 4 Macc. 14:2 as a parallel. Still others believe this epithet royal refers to its rank among other commands (cf. Matt. 12:31). Probably the reference is to its being a law of the kingdom of which Jesus is king, first, because that sense of kingdom appears in 2:5; second, because James uses the term “law” (which normally refers to a body of law), not commandment (which refers to a single law); and third, because this sense of royal most underlines the seriousness of their action. See further, V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), pp. 179–80.
2:9 On the connection between love and caring for the poor see also G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927), vol. 2, pp. 84–88.
The term sin is found frequently in James, e.g., 4:17; 5:16, 17, 20. His goal (5:20) is to turn sinners from the error of their ways. Jesus also spoke about doing sin (Matt. 7:23).
The idea of being a transgressor or lawbreaker is found in Rom. 2:25, 27; Gal. 2:8 and also in the Talmud, e.g., b. Shabbath 11a. See further S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology.
2:10 The idea of the unity of the law is found in such Jewish writings as 4 Macc. 5:20 and Testament of Asher 2:5, as well as rabbinic writings. It also occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, e.g., Matt. 5:18–19, with its emphasis on the least commandment, or Gal. 5:3, where Paul insists that one cannot take the law piecemeal.
2:11 The reversed order of the commands in the Decalogue does appear in a few Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament as well as in Luke 18:20 and Rom. 13:9, so one cannot be sure that James’ order is deliberate. Yet Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Amos 8:4; Sirach 34:26; Testament of Gad 4:6–7, and 1 John 3:15 all associate murder with the failure to care for the poor. Thus there was a strong Jewish and Christian tradition for James to use. James is conceptually so close to 1 John that this parallel passage may be very significant.
2:12 James speaks frequently of judgment, e.g., 1:19; 3:1–12; 4:11–16, and 5:12 speak of words being judged, and 1:27; 4:1–10; 5:1–6 speak of deeds. But Jesus also gave solemn warnings in Matt. 12:36; 25:31–45.
J. B. Adamson, James, pp. 118–19, contrasts the law of liberty of 2:12 with the law of ordinances in 2:10–11, seeing a law-grace dichotomy consonant with his reformed theology. But there is no evidence in the text that this was in James’ mind. He feels perfectly comfortable with enjoying grace within a structure of ethical rules.
2:13 Judgment without mercy is not injustice but rather strict justice without forgiveness. See further E. E. Urbach, The Sages.
Mercy triumphs over judgment in the sense of “boast in triumphant comparison with other,” as R. Bultmann points out (“Katakauchaomai,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 653–54). In comparison with the strictness of judgment, mercy is more powerful.
The sense of mercy meaning charity is already evident in the Old Testament passages cited. For example, the wider context of Zech. 7:9 explicitly mentions caring for the poor as the focus of mercy. In the New Testament the Greek for mercy, eleos, or merciful, eleēmones (Matt. 5:7), is closely related to giving alms or charity, eleēmosynē (Matt. 6:2). New Testament mercy is not reactive, simply not giving someone what he or she deserves, but proactive, i.e., meeting the needs of another whether or not that person has a formal claim on the giver (Luke 10:37, the good Samaritan). Furthermore, mercy is pre-eminently an attribute of God and thus a characteristic taken on by those being transformed into God’s likeness in Christ.
2:14 The what good is it form also appears in 1 Cor. 15:32. The second rhetorical question (Can such faith save him?) begins with the Greek negative mē, which introduces questions expecting a negative answer.
That save refers to salvation in the final judgment is seen when one considers the judgment already spoken of in 2:13; the references to such salvation in 1:21; 4:12; 5:20 and the general meaning of save in the New Testament. See further W. Foerster, “Sōzō,” TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 990–98.
For the prophetic denunciation of piety without works, see e.g., Amos 5:21–24; Micah 4:1–4, and J. Miranda, Marx and the Bible, pp. 111–60. Paul is in full agreement: The works Paul is against are the “works of the law,” the ritual actions of the law, like circumcision, used to gain salvation. When it comes to evil (e.g., Gal. 5:19–21), he can say that those doing certain things “will not possess the kingdom of God.” On the other hand, he points out that the whole purpose of salvation is good works (Eph. 2:10). Jews had a similar faith-works position. See m. Aboth 1:2 or S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 214, or G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927), vol. 2, pp. 168–69.
2:15 The without clothes in Greek is literally “naked.” This means, however, the lacking of an outer garment (Job 22:6; 24:7; 31:9; Isa. 20:5; 58:7; Matt. 25:36; John 21:7; 2 Cor. 11:27). Rabbi Akiba and his wife had only one outer garment between them, so one stayed home while the other wore the garment to the market or the rabbinic school. At night they buried themselves in straw to keep warm.
The without … daily food in Greek is not the same as Matt. 6:11 but means the same. James has used a form more common in classical Greek
2:16 Go, I wish you well is the common Hebrew dismissal, which was actually blessing the person (Judg. 18:6; 1 Sam. 1:17; 20:42; Mark 5:34; Acts 16:36). The wish for peace (Hebrew shalôm, which means health or wholeness) was taken so seriously that 2 John 10–11 prohibits Christians from giving such greetings to false teachers.
The physical needs are the food and clothing the person cannot survive without. Any Jew or Jewish Christian would have understood the imperative of charity in such a case, for as R. Hiyya said: “He who turns his eyes away from almsgiving is as if he worshipped idols” (b. Kettubim 68a, from C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology [New York: Schocken Books, 1974], p. 413; see further pp. 412–39). Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) taught that the failure to meet an obvious need despite having the means damns a person.
2:17 The term by itself is particularly close to the body-breath analogy and might have suggested it to James (2:26).
2:18 Although the general meaning of the passage is clear, the language is so difficult some scholars have assumed that part of this verse has disappeared. Two other positions have merit. One argues that the voice is favorable to James and restates his position of 2:17: “You (claim to) have faith, and I (you admit) have works. Show me your ‘faith’ apart from your works (you cannot, naturally), and I will show you my faith by means of my works” (see further J. B. Mayor, James, pp. 124–25, 135–37). In that case the voice merges back into James’ voice in v. 20 or 21. Grammatically this is possible, but the stumbling block is the fact that in other places in Greek literature the someone will say introduction always introduces a hostile or opposing voice (see also Luke 4:23; Rom. 11:9; 4 Macc. 2:24; Barnabas 9:6; Josephus, Wars 8.363). A second position, followed in the NIV and this commentary, argues that this sentence is an objection and that although “you” and “I” are used in the Greek they are simply a distributive “one … another.” Thus the “you” and “I” refer to no one in particular but indicate two different individuals. (M. Dibelius, James, p. 156, cites a similar example in Teles.) Though this explanation is grammatically awkward, it is consonant with the introductory phrase and does not resort to emendation. See further J. H. Ropes, James, pp. 208–14; C. L. Mitton, James, pp. 108–9; S. S. Laws, James, pp. 123–24.
2:19 The fact that James writes you believe that rather than “you believe in” shows that he is thinking of intellectual belief rather than personal commitment. See further R. Bultmann, “Pisteuō,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 210–12.
The form of the Shema in this verse is translated in the NIV “there is one God,” following one set of Greek manuscripts. However, the reading “God is one,” found in other manuscripts, is probably the one James actually wrote. Though the Shema was the beginning point for Christians in a pagan world (e.g., 1 Thess. 1:9), it was not the end point of faith. For the Jew as well, the Shema was not the end, for it led to keeping the law as an expression of faith. The fact that James cites the Shema may also be connected to his citation of Abraham in 2:21, for Abraham was believed in Judaism to have discovered and taught this truth that God is one, despite his pagan environment and persecution. See further R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), pp. 79–83.
That the demons shudder or tremble was also known outside Christianity. For example, in the apocryphal work 1 Enoch, when Enoch sees the fallen angels, he states, “Then I spoke to them all together, and they were all afraid, and fear and trembling seized them” (1 Enoch 13:3; cf. 69:1, 14). One reason for the trembling was that the name of God was invoked in exorcisms. See further A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1927, 1978), especially p. 260; and J. Jeremias, “Paul and James,” ExpTim 66 (1955), p. 370.
2:20 The term for you foolish man (used differently in 4:5) is the Greek equivalent for raca of Matt. 5:22 (“you fool,” NIV; RSV; “you good-for-nothing,” GNB). In the Septuagint kenos is used in Judg. 9:4; 11:3, meaning moral error rather than intellectual lack. Similar strong language occurs in the Stoic Epictetus and the Christian Hermas: “And she cried out with a loud voice and said, ‘Oh, foolish man! Do you not see the tower is still being built?’” (Vision 3.8.9). See further A. Oepke, “Kenos,” TDNT, vol. 3, p. 659.
The term useless in faith without deeds is useless is not the same word used in 2:17, 26 or 1:26. It is a term meaning “sterile,” “unproductive,” “useless” (Matt. 12:36; 20:3, 6; 1 Tim. 5:13; Titus 1:13; 2 Pet. 1:8), forming (in Greek) a wordplay with actions.
2:21 Our ancestor Abraham was sometimes used by the Gentiles; 1 Clement 31:2 asks, “Why was our forefather Abraham blest? Was it not because he acted in righteousness and dependability through faith?” but Jews referred to him far more frequently this way, e.g., Isa. 51:2; 4 Macc. 16:20; Matt. 3:9; John 8:39; m. Aboth 5:2).
The tests of Abraham are referred to in a variety of late Jewish literature, e.g., Aboth de. R. Nathan 32; m. Aboth 5:3; Jubilees 17:17; 19:8; Pirke R. Eliezer 26–31, as is his great charity: Testament of Abraham, recension A, 1.17; Targum Ps.-Jonathan on Gen. 21:33; Aboth de R. Nathan 7. Translation of the last-named as well as of the Midrash on Psalms passage cited in the text can be found in C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology, pp. 415 and 564 respectively. See further L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, p. 281. Further passages are cited in R. B. Ward, “pp. 286–90; and P. H. Davids, “Tradition and Interpretation in the Epistle of James,” pp. 113–16.
On the concept of declaring right at the end of a test see further B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son, esp. p. 27.
2:22 Gen. 15:6 (cf. James 2:23) speaks of faith, but that does not explain the particular emphasis James gives to it. Furthermore, although only the Jubilees version was cited, there are multiple versions of the Abraham legend. In the midrash Genesis Rabba 98:3, for example, the Shema is traced back to Abraham. Josephus has his version in Antiquities 1.154–157 (1.7.1 in Whiston’s division): “[Abraham] was the first that ventured to publish this notion that there was but one God, the Creator of the universe.” Philo also refers to the legend (Legum Allegoriae 3.228; De Virtue 216). Thus all Jews in the New Testament period thought of Abraham as the first to discover monotheistic faith.
2:23 The form of argument is a typical Jewish exegesis or midrash, with a first text (the Abraham history) having already been discussed and now secondary texts being added. The scripture was fulfilled is not in the sense of prediction fulfillment, but in the sense of the scripture agreeing with the scriptural narrative. See further R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, pp. 32–38.
The Jews frequently referred to the Gen. 15:6 passage, Abraham believed God. Not only 1 Macc. 2:52 uses it but also Jubilees 15:6; Philo (De Abrahamo 262; Quod Deus sit Immutabilis 4); and several passages in early rabbinic midrash. James’ use follows this moderate tradition, not that, for example, of the Targum Ps.-Jonathan (on Gen. 15:6), where the faith of Abraham is itself seen as a work.
It was credited to him as righteousness is passive in the Greek Old Testament (“it was reckoned to him for righteousness”) but active in Hebrew (“he accounted it to him [as?] righteousness”). James apparently understands this active sense and thus sees Abraham’s faith as one part of the sentence, and “he accounted him righteous” as the second part. The idea of accounting was understood in James’ day as entering in the heavenly books. See further H. W. Heidland, “Logizomai,” TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 284–92.
That Abraham was counted God’s friend and that this was connected to his deeds is clear from Jubilees 30:20; 2 Esdras 3:14; and 1 Clement 10:1 (who shares James’ tradition), as well as the passage cited. See further J. Jeremias, “Abraam,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 8–9.
2:24 The you see is a shift from second person singular (the “you” of 2:18, 19, 20, 22) to second person plural.
The supposed James-Paul conflict is a major issue. J. T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament, pp. 115–28, sets James against Paul in such a way as to force the reader to reject one or the other. Luther, for whom the problem was also acute, opted for Paul and almost rejected James from the canon. Luther was correct that if James knew and understood Paul’s doctrine so that he used his words with the same meanings, then James is directly contradicting Paul. What Luther failed to understand was that he was reading Paul’s meaning backwards into James. James uses words so differently from Paul that if he had ever heard Paul’s teaching (as he might not have before A.D. 49), he had only heard it in the form of second- or third-hand slogans, which had taken on a meaning that Paul would have rejected.
The three critical terms discussed illustrate this point. The first is the Greek ergon, which in James means what he does (charity, kindness, virtue), whereas in Paul it is always joined to the word “law” (nomos) and always means ritual acts, except in Gal. 5:19 and 6:4 where it is used positively. The second is dikaioō, which is translated in Paul correctly as “put right with God,” whereas James uses it as it is used forty-four times in the Septuagint for “declared to be right by God.” Where Paul’s new meaning is read into James, total misunderstanding results. Finally there is the word faith (pistis), which James uses in three ways himself, for true commitment (2:5), for Christianity (2:1), and for intellectual belief (2:14–26). He only has problems with this last type of “faith” and then only if unconnected to works (faith alone). Paul normally uses it in one of the two first meanings, which include the actions about which James is so adamant.
James’ teaching, then, is that of Matt. 7:15–21, that all one’s orthodox assertions will not substitute for obedience as a proof of heart commitment when it comes to the final judgment. Paul believed the same (1 Cor. 13:2; 2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:6; 6:4; Eph. 4:17ff.; Col. 3:5ff.), but James is closer in phrasing and life-setting to his master Jesus.
See further J. Jeremias, “Paul and James,” ExpTim 66 (1955–1956); J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972), pp. 9–14; E. L. Allen, “Controversy in the New Testament,” NTS 1 (1954–1955), pp. 143–49; and especially H. C. Hahn. “Work,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 1147–52; H. Seebass and C. Brown, “Righteousness,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 352–77; O. Michel, “Faith,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 393–607.
2:25 Rahab was viewed by Jesus as the archetypal proselyte to Judaism, and traditions about her abounded. In Christian literature, not only Heb. 11:31 (which stresses her action) praises her, but also 1 Clement 12:1, 8, which is part of a larger section, 1 Clement 9–12. In this section, after a brief mention of Enoch and Noah, Abraham is treated thoroughly as one “called the friend, proved faithful in that he obeyed the words of God.” Especially “his faith and hospitality” are named. Lot, who comes next, is cited for “hospitality and piety.” Then Clement continues, “Because of her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved.” Thus in the early church Rahab was grouped with Abraham, perhaps because both turned from their respective pagan environments to serve God. It is no coincidence that James cites both in order. Furthermore, both are cited as examples of faith and charity, for in the East hospitality was an important form of charity (e.g., Heb. 13:2). See further H. Chadwick, “Justification by Faith and Hospitality,” SP 4 (1961), p. 281.
2:26 In Gen. 2:7 the first human is formed of spirit, or breath, and body. The union of the two produces a living being, whether in creation or in the womb (Eccles. 11:5). When one dies, the spirit or breath returns to God and the body crumbles into dust (Eccles. 12:7). Spirit and breath are identical words in Hebrew and in Greek (rûaḥ and pneuma respectively), so breathing one’s last is often seen as giving up spirit (e.g., Gen. 49:33; cf. John 19:30; Luke 23:46; and Mark 15:37 for three descriptions of the same death). For the Jew and Christian death is never welcome. Their Greek neighbors rejoiced in the freeing of the immortal soul from the prison of the body. The Christian, by way of contrast, did not want to be unclothed (without a body), but clothed with a resurrected body (2 Cor. 5:1–10; cf. 1 Cor. 15); the redemption of the body was the real hope (Rom. 8:23). James follows normal Christian practice in seeing a corpse as useless and bad.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Peter H. Davids, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
One of the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Narrowly interpreted, the prohibition forbids extramarital relations with a married woman (Lev. 20:10), but it is applied more broadly in Lev. 20 and Deut. 22 24 to cover a variety of sexual offenses.
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).
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).
There are seven references in the OT to “footstool,” only one of which is literal (2Chron. 9:18); the other six are variously figurative. In 1Chron. 28:2 the ark of the covenant is apparently referred to as God’s footstool (though this imagery clashes somewhat with other texts that seem to regard the ark as the seat of his throne). Psalm 99:5 commands worship at God’s footstool, perhaps referring to the temple (so also Ps. 132:7; Lam. 2:1). In Isa. 66:1 God declares that the earth is his footstool (seeing the universe as his temple). In Ps. 110:1 God tells the anointed king that he will make his enemies “a footstool for your feet.” Paintings from ancient Egypt depict Pharaoh’s footstool adorned with carvings of conquered enemies, and correspondence from both Egypt and Mesopotamia indicates that vassals referred to themselves as the king’s footstool.
In the NT, all the references to “footstool” are quotations of, or allusions to, the aforementioned OT passages (Matt. 5:35; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; 7:49; Heb. 1:13; 10:13).
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).
The Bible contains many references to minerals and metals. Minerals can encompass a wide array of topics, thus the focus here is on valuable minerals such as ornamental stones as well as precious and useful metals.
Copper. References to copper within the Bible are few. Several passages discuss the basic origins of copper, such as the gathering of ore or the smelting process (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 24:11). Several NT passages acknowledge the presence of minted copper coins as currency (Matt. 10:9; Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2). Pure copper, however, was hard to use, although it could be combined with tin to make the alloy bronze.
Bronze. The first biblical reference to bronze is found in Gen. 4:22, in which we are told that Tubal-Cain forged tools out of bronze and iron. Next, bronze is mentioned in its use in the tabernacle built in the desert. Among the bronze items included were the many bronze clasps and bases for the tent construction (Exod. 26:11, 37; 27:1011, 17–19). The altar and all its utensils were made of, or overlaid with, bronze (27:1–8). God also instructed Moses to make a bronze basin for washing (30:18). Moses also made a snake out of bronze and placed it on top of his staff when the Israelites were struck with an abundance of venomous snakes (Num. 21:9). Samson was bound with shackles of bronze (Judg. 16:21), and Goliath wore armor and carried weapons of bronze (1Sam. 17:5–6). Solomon used an extensive amount of bronze in his building of the temple (2Kings 25:16), and there was bronze in the statue that Daniel dreamed of (Dan. 2:32, 35). Many of the prophets used bronze as a way to discuss something that was to be strong or strengthened by God (Isa. 45:2; Jer. 1:18; Ezek. 40:3).
Iron and steel. One of the earliest references to iron in Scripture is its use by the Canaanites to make chariots (Josh. 17:16, 18). This would have been an early use of the metal in the Iron AgeI period (1200–1000 BC). Also, Goliath’s spear, which was as big as a weaver’s rod, is said to have had a head made of iron (1Sam. 17:7). Elisha’s miracle of making a borrowed ax head float (2Kings 6:6) shows the continued value of the metal. In his latter days, David amassed iron among the goods to give Solomon to use in building the temple (1Chron. 22:14; 29:2); Solomon later used these materials with the help of Huram-Abi (2Chron. 2:13–14). Ezekiel discusses the economic value of iron in the context of trading (Ezek. 27:12, 19), and Daniel uses it as a metaphor for discussing strength (Dan. 2:40–41). The NT recognizes the strength of iron when discussing Christ’s iron scepter (Rev. 2:27; 19:15).
Tin. Tin was initially used mainly to produce the copper alloy bronze. Tin was not used in its pure form until well into the Roman period, and even then seldom by itself. The sources of tin in the ancient world are currently debated. The tin from large deposits in Tarshish in southern Spain (Ezek. 27:12) was available through Phoenician traders. Tin is also found in large deposits in Anatolia, but it is currently unknown whether these deposits had been discovered and used during biblical times. A third option is modern-day Afghanistan. Archaeologists have discovered in modern Turkey the remains of a wrecked ship, dated to around 1350 BC, that was carrying ten tons of copper ingots and about one ton of tin ingots. These ingots possibly originated in the area of modern-day Afghanistan and were bound for the Mediterranean trade routes. Tin is mentioned only four times in Scripture, always within a list of other metals (Num. 31:22; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 27:12).
Lead. Lead was used early in human history, but its applications were few. It would have been mined with copper and silver ore and then extracted as a by-product. The Romans used it for various implements, most notably wine vessels. It is referenced nine times within Scripture, either in a list or in reference to its weight. The only two times it is referenced as an object is when Job mentions a lead writing implement (Job 19:24), and when Zechariah has the vision of a woman sitting in the basket with a lead cover (Zech. 5:7, 8).
Gold and silver. Sought after for much of human history, gold and silver have been worked by humans for their ornamental value. The practical uses of these metals within the biblical setting were constrained mainly to their economic and ornamental value. Gold and silver jewelry were used as a form of payment and were minted into coins during the Greco-Roman era. Gold objects are relatively scarce in archaeological finds, mainly because most gold items would have been part of a large treasury carried off as tribute or plunder. Silver appears in the archaeological record more frequently; a remarkable hoard of silver in lump form was found at Eshtemoa (see 1Sam. 30:26–28). This silver has been dated to the time of the kingdom of Judah, after the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen. The silver in raw lump form was most likely used as a monetary payment, even though it had not yet been minted into coins.
Gold in the ancient world came largely from Egypt and northern Africa. The Bible mentions Havilah as a land of gold (Gen. 2:11), as well as Ophir (1Kings 9:28), but the exact location of both places is unknown. Silver was mined in southern Spain, along with other metals, and brought to the area through sea trading. The Athenians of the Classical period were also known for their vast silver-mining operations.
Silver and gold are mentioned repeatedly in the OT in reference to their uses in trading and their economic value. Most notably, the Israelites asked their Egyptian neighbors to give them gold and silver items just before they left Egypt (Exod. 3:22). The tabernacle was highly ornamented with these two metals, as was the temple built by Solomon. It is said that Solomon made the nation so wealthy that silver was considered as plentiful as stone (1Kings 10:27). Perhaps the most notorious articles of silver within Scripture are those paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus (Matt. 26:15).
Precious stones. Stones of various origins were used in and around Palestine. The Bible makes few references to their use. Like gold and silver, they were used mainly for their ornamental value. Their scarcity made them highly prized. One notable exception is turquoise. The Egyptian pharaohs were fascinated with turquoise, and they mined extensively for it on the Sinai Peninsula. The remains of several turquoise mines have been found with Canaanite markings, indicating the presence of Canaanite slaves working the Egyptian mines. There was also a line of forts along the northern edge of the Egyptian Empire, used presumably to protect the pharaohs’ turquoise interests. Precious stones were also found in Syria, where Phoenician traders would have been able to bring them from other parts of the known world.
Exodus 28:17–21 describes twelve stones set in the breastpiece worn by the Israelite high priest. Twelve stones likewise appear in the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20). Ezekiel uses nine of these same twelve stones to discuss the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:13).
The Bible uses the blanket term “precious stones” to denote a hoard of riches, such as that owned by Solomon (1Kings 10:10).
Judges covers the period between the death of Joshua and the rise of the monarchy in Israel. It was a turbulent period, as the people did not seem to have any center in God. The bulk of the book narrates the stories of judges, mostly military leaders, whom God sent to Israel on those occasions when they turned to him for help (Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson). The book also includes brief mentions of judges who are not associated with violent actions against the enemy (Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon [10:15; 12:8–15]), as well as the story of an abortive attempt to establish kingship during this time (Abimelek [chap. 9]).
Indeed, the stories of the judges who were deliverers tend to follow a relatively set pattern. They begin with the sin of the people, which leads to their oppression by a foreign power. The suffering of the people shocks them into realizing that they need God, and they turn to him for help. In such instances, God responds by giving the people a judge, really a military leader, who then delivers them from the power of their oppressors. However, after a period of peace, the people sin again, and another oppressor takes control.
The two stories in the appendix of the book of Judges simply add emphasis to the dark picture painted in the body of the book. These are two accounts of family sins that expand into national tragedies. Individuals from the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe dedicated to special service to God, play a particularly negative role in the appendix.
This phrase “in those days Israel had no king” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) is repeated throughout the appendix of the book and alerts the reader to one of the major themes of the book. Who will be the human leader of the people of God? The imperfect judges and the fragmentary condition of the tribes as well as their sad spiritual state cause the reader to yearn for something better: the rise of divinely appointed kingship in Israel. The books of Samuel and Kings, which follow, narrate the promise and ultimate failure of kingship, which itself will lead to the expectation of something even more, the Messiah.
Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.
The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2Chron. 24:24).
The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:78) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).
One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).
Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).
A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world.
A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan.3).
God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:1420). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).
In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 1923) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.
More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.
Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1Kings 8:2324; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.
Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35).
Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow.
The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).
Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1Cor. 11:2022; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).
Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7).
The term “Scripture” (graphē) appears fifty-one times in the NT, used in reference to the OT. Sometimes the biblical writers cite a specific OT text as Scripture, while at other times they refer to Scripture in a more comprehensive manner.
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.
In English, the word “synagogue” refers either to a Jewish congregation or to the place where that congregation meets. Synagogues of the biblical era functioned as both religious and civic centers for the Jewish community.
Since synagogues were institutions with a documented history no earlier than the third century BC, they are not mentioned in the OT. The Greek word from which the English one is derived does appear frequently in the LXX, but always with a general reference to a gathering, assembly, or meeting.
Synagogues frequently were locations of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus. He began preaching the kingdom of God, teaching, and performing healing miracles in Galilean synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21 29, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15–38, 44; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; John 6:59; 18:20). Later, the apostle Paul customarily initiated his mission work in the local synagogue at each of his destinations (Acts 9:19–20; 13:5, 14–15; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:1–8; 19:8).
The last (and, from a twenty-first-century perspective, most controversial) use of the word “synagogue” in Scripture is the difficult phrase “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), which must be read in its context. This was written in response to the significant persecution in Asia Minor of the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia by Jews who were in collusion with the Roman authorities. They were falsely accusing Jewish and Gentile Christian believers, creating unspeakable suffering for them. This phrase, intended to encourage Christian perseverance, implies that the churches in view represented true Israel, while their accusers were false Jews.
Direct Matches
One of the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:14; Deut. 5:18). Narrowly interpreted, the prohibition forbidsextramarital relations with a married woman (Lev. 20:10), but it isapplied more broadly in Lev. 20 and Deut. 22–24 to cover avariety of sexual offenses.
Theprophets invoked the commandment in condemning God’s waywardpeople (Hos. 4:2; Jer. 7:9). They also used it as a metaphor forspiritual unfaithfulness to the God of the covenant (Hos. 3–4;Ezek. 16:30–34), as does Revelation for succumbing to falseteaching (Rev. 2:22).
Jesusbrought out the original force of the commandment, saying that alustful look amounted to adultery (Matt. 5:27–30). He listedthis commandment in Mark 10:19 (and pars.) when talking to the richyoung ruler. Paul and James also made clear that the prohibition wasstill in force (Rom. 2:22; 13:9; James 2:11). Jesus taught thatadultery springs from the unregenerate heart (Matt. 15:19 pars.), andfor Paul adultery was one of “the acts of the flesh”(Gal. 5:19).
TheOT penalty for adultery was stoning (Deut. 22:22–24), though itis not clear how rigorously this was enforced. Jesus forgave thewoman “caught in adultery” (John 8:3–11) and toldher not to repeat her sin. His leniency may have been motivated inpart by the hypocrisy of her accusers, who had let the guilty man gofree.
Theexception clause in Jesus’ teaching that forbids divorce andremarriage (“except for sexual immorality,” whichincludes adultery) is found in Matt. 5:32; 19:9. Matthew only spellsout what is implicit in Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18. Jesus statedthat if a man divorces his wife so as to marry another woman (moreattractive to him for some reason), this is nothing but legalizedadultery. The notorious example of Herod’s marriage to Herodiasmay be part of the background to this teaching (Mark 6:17).
Primarily, the Israelite community united by a common bond to(or in covenant with) their God (Deut. 33:4; Josh. 8:35; 18:1;1 Kings 8:5). Previous scholarship distinguished congregation(’edah) from assembly (qahal ), defining the former asthe gathering of Israelites for a specific goal and the latter as thegathering of Israel as the special (covenant) people of God. Thisviewpoint was anchored in the LXX’s preponderant rendition of’edah as synagōgē and qahal as ekklēsia. Thissharp distinction between the two terms can no longer be sustained.The difference in the frequency of the two terms in the Hebrew Biblecorresponds to the growth of the Scriptures: ’edah predominatesin Genesis through Numbers, whereas qahal occurs more often inDeuteronomy, the Former Prophets, the Latter Prophets, and theWritings. The association of the verbal form of qahal with both nouns(’edah and qahal ) further buttresses the point (Exod.35:1; Lev. 8:3; Num. 1:18; 10:7; Judg. 20:1; 21:5–8; 1 Chron.13:2–5).
Theterms also refer to Israelite gatherings for special purposes such asworship, war, lawcourt, and councils. They also refer to theassemblage of other peoples or beings such as divine beings,evildoers or enemies, beasts, and bees.
TheNT uses both ekklēsia and synagōgē to refer tosynagogue gatherings (Acts 7:38; 13:43). English versions translateboth terms as either “congregation” or “assembly.”These translations render the ekklēsia in Heb. 2:12 as either“assembly” or “congregation,” whereas theytranslate synagōgē in James 2:2 as “assembly”or “meeting.” See also Church.
Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.
In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).
Articles of Clothing
A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.
In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).
Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).
In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).
Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).
Special Functions of Clothing
According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).
Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).
Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).
Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.
Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).
Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.
In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).
Articles of Clothing
A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.
In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).
Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).
In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).
Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).
Special Functions of Clothing
According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).
Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).
Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).
Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.
Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).
Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.
In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).
Articles of Clothing
A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.
In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).
Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).
In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).
Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).
Special Functions of Clothing
According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).
Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).
Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).
Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.
Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).
Primarily, the Israelite community united by a common bond to(or in covenant with) their God (Deut. 33:4; Josh. 8:35; 18:1;1 Kings 8:5). Previous scholarship distinguished congregation(’edah) from assembly (qahal ), defining the former asthe gathering of Israelites for a specific goal and the latter as thegathering of Israel as the special (covenant) people of God. Thisviewpoint was anchored in the LXX’s preponderant rendition of’edah as synagōgē and qahal as ekklēsia. Thissharp distinction between the two terms can no longer be sustained.The difference in the frequency of the two terms in the Hebrew Biblecorresponds to the growth of the Scriptures: ’edah predominatesin Genesis through Numbers, whereas qahal occurs more often inDeuteronomy, the Former Prophets, the Latter Prophets, and theWritings. The association of the verbal form of qahal with both nouns(’edah and qahal ) further buttresses the point (Exod.35:1; Lev. 8:3; Num. 1:18; 10:7; Judg. 20:1; 21:5–8; 1 Chron.13:2–5).
Theterms also refer to Israelite gatherings for special purposes such asworship, war, lawcourt, and councils. They also refer to theassemblage of other peoples or beings such as divine beings,evildoers or enemies, beasts, and bees.
TheNT uses both ekklēsia and synagōgē to refer tosynagogue gatherings (Acts 7:38; 13:43). English versions translateboth terms as either “congregation” or “assembly.”These translations render the ekklēsia in Heb. 2:12 as either“assembly” or “congregation,” whereas theytranslate synagōgē in James 2:2 as “assembly”or “meeting.” See also Church.
Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.
In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).
Articles of Clothing
A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.
In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).
Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).
In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).
Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).
Special Functions of Clothing
According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).
Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).
Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).
Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.
Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Speech (2Kings 19:16; Isa. 37:17) or gesture (2Sam.10:4) that shames, demeans, disrespects, abuses, offends, or slightssomeone. Insults in the biblical world were also part of propagandaand warfare; for example, Nabal hurled insults at David (1Sam.25:14; cf. Lam. 3:61–63). Divine wrath is implored forvengeance against those who insult God (2Kings 19:22–23;Neh. 4:4; Ezek. 21:28; Zeph. 2:8), while responding in kind seems tobe acceptable (Isa. 37:23), since, as the psalmist bemoans, insultsdirected at God include the psalmist too (Ps. 69:9). Romans 15:3 putsthese sentiments in the mouth of Christ (cf. Ps. 22:7).
Jeremiahbewails insults directed at him for simply being a prophet (Jer.20:8) and laments the desecration of the temple as an insult to Godand his people (51:51). While prudence ignores insults and showsself-control (Prov. 12:16), correcting mockers invites insult (9:7;22:10).
Jesus’followers are to anticipate insults (Heb. 10:33) and even count themas blessings (Matt. 5:11; Luke 6:22) because they are partaking ofwhat Jesus himself went through (Matt. 27:39; 27:44; Mark 15:29;15:32; Luke 18:32; 23:39; 1Pet. 4:14). But 1Pet. 2:23;3:9 discourage responding in kind when insulted. Paul, as part of hissuffering (1Thess. 2:2), even delighted in insults for Christ’ssake (2Cor. 12:10). Discriminating against the poor is aninsult to them (James 2:6), while insulting the Spirit of graceresults in divine judgment (Heb. 10:29).
The Bible makes strong distinctions between righteous andsinful judging. God commands his people to exercise fair andimpartial judgment, especially to society’s poor and helpless(e.g., Exod. 23:1–9; Prov. 31:9; Isa. 1:17), punishing theperversions of favoritism and bribery (Deut. 16:19; Amos 5:12). TheNT warns against partiality (James 2:1–9) and judging byoutward appearances (John 7:24). Jesus denounces selfish andhypocritical judgment: “Do not judge, or you too will bejudged” (Matt. 7:1 [cf. Luke 6:37]). This kind of judgingpresumes moral superiority over others (Rom. 2:1–5) and revealsan unrepentant heart, blind to its own sinfulness. It criticizesothers over spiritually disputable matters (“specks” [seeMatt. 7:3–5]), whereas Christian love defers such judgments toGod (Rom. 14:1–18). Believers still must confront sin in thechurch (Matt. 18:15–17; Heb. 3:12–13; James 5:19–20)and the world (2Cor. 10:5), but they must do so in a humble,gentle spirit (Gal. 6:1) that repents of its own sin beforeaddressing another’s (Matt. 7:5).
Behind the English translation “mercy” liediverse biblical words in Hebrew (khesed, khanan, rakham) and inGreek (charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon). These words are alsotranslated as “love,” “compassion,” “grace,”“favor,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”and so on, depending on context. Hence, a conceptual approach to themeaning of “mercy” is best.
God’sMercy
Mercyas part of God’s character.Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God iscalled “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV[NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich inmercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’smercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people(1Kings 8:23–24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed theoppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy,which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.Here, the rekindling of God’s mercy toward the Israelites wasdepicted in terms of remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob (Exod. 2:23–25). Mercy is a manifestation of God’sfaithfulness to his covenant. Hence, God’s mercy to hiscovenant people never ceases (Pss. 119:132; 103:17).
Godhas absolute sovereignty in electing the people to whom he wills toshow mercy. A classic expression appears in Exod. 33:19: “Iwill have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassionon whom I will have compassion.” Paul quoted this to explainGod’s sovereignty in electing Jacob as the recipient of God’smercy (Rom. 9:13–15). God’s mercy cannot be acquired byhuman effort or desire (Rom. 9:16). God even ordered the Israelitesto show no mercy to the Canaanites because of their corruption andidolatry (Deut. 7:2).
Diverseimages are used to describe God’s mercy. God is compared to aloving father who has compassion on his children (Jer. 31:20; Mal.3:17). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lordhas compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed,he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:13–14). God’scompassion is also compared to that of a nursing mother who feeds herbaby at her breast (Isa. 49:15). The images of the loving father andthe loving mother reflect closely the heart of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. God is especially merciful to the needy,the weak, the afflicted, and the oppressed (Exod. 2:23–24; Ps.123:2–3; Isa. 49:13; Heb. 4:16). God is called “a fatherto the fatherless” and “a defender of widows” (Ps.68:5). Sinners appeal for God’s mercy when they requestforgiveness (Ps. 51:1). “Have mercy on me” is a commonform of expression when the psalmist entreats God for his forgiveness(Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is also shown in his act ofsalvation and blessing (Exod. 15:13; Deut. 13:17–18; Judg.2:18; Eph. 2:4–5).
God’smercy in redemptive history.Redemptive history is a successive demonstration of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. It was because of God’s mercy that hetook the initiative to save fallen human beings (Gen. 3:15). Deathwas the due penalty for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17), but God preachedthe good news of mercy that the descendant of the woman would somedaycrush the head of the serpent. In Rev. 20:2 that ancient serpent inthe garden of Eden is identified as “the devil, or Satan,”whose head was crushed by Jesus Christ on the cross and is bound bythe coming Messiah “for a thousand years” and will be“thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:2, 10).In spite of God’s judgment on Cain, the first murderer, Godshowed mercy by putting a mark on him so that no one would kill him(Gen. 4:15). As the psalmist later confesses, God proves himself asthe merciful God who “does not treat us as our sins deserve orrepay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10).
Noahand his family were saved from the judgment of the flood because ofGod’s special mercy toward them (Gen. 6:8). Immediately afterGod confused the languages of human beings because of their challengeto him (Gen. 11:1–9), God showed mercy on Abram, “awandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), and designated him to be thefather of his chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3). Jacob’selection originated solely from God’s mercy, as Paul pointedout by quoting Scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”(Rom. 9:13). The exodus is also the clearest evidence of God’sdemonstration of mercy toward his chosen people (Exod. 2:23–25).They were saved not by their own righteousness but rather by God’smercy on the covenant people, who suffered under the bondage ofPharaoh’s slavery. God’s mercy reached its climax when hesent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners (Rom. 5:8). It isbecause of God’s mercy that we are saved, not because of ourrighteousness (Titus 3:5).
Christ’sMercy
JesusChrist lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodilymanifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercywhenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospelsdescribe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed theblind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and thedead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, whodid not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheepwithout a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
Jesus’ministry of healing and evangelism was motivated by his deep mercyand compassion toward people in physical and spiritual need (Luke4:16–21; cf. Isa. 61:1–2). Whenever the sick appealed tohis mercy, Jesus never refused to dispense it to them (Matt. 15:22;17:14–18). For example, he healed the two blind men whoentreated his mercy (Matt. 20:30–34). When a leper, kneelingbefore him, entreated his mercy, Jesus touched him (risking his ownuncleanness according to the law) and healed him (Matt. 8:2–3).When a centurion asked for Jesus’ mercy on his sick servant, hewas willing to go and heal the sick man (Matt. 8:5–13). Jesus’mercy was aroused especially when he saw people crying for the dead,and even he shed tears (John 11:33–35). When Jesus saw a widowcrying for her dead son during a funeral procession, he comforted andhad compassion on her and made her son alive (Luke 7:12–15).
Accordingto Heb. 2:17–18, Jesus became “a merciful and faithfulhigh priest” to make atonement for the sins of his people. Heis also compared to the high priest who is able to sympathize withour weaknesses because he “has been tempted in every way, justas we are” (Heb. 4:15). His high priestly work on earth washighlighted in terms of his ministry of mercy toward his people. LikeGod’s mercy, Jesus’ mercy was shown in his actions ofsalvation (Luke 19:10; Eph. 5:2; 1Tim. 1:14–16; Titus3:4–7), of blessing (Mark 10:13–16), and of forgiveness(Mark 2:10; Luke 23:34). Paul’s personal experience led him toconfess, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we haddone, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5). Jesus’character of mercy was most vividly manifested on the cross when heprayed for the forgiveness of the crucifying soldiers and the cursingcrowds (Luke 23:33–37).
HumanResponse to God’s Mercy
Whatis the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? Godexpects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people.One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant(Matt. 18:23–35). The central focus of this parable is on theunmerciful servant, to whom a tremendous mercy is shown by the king,but who refuses to show a little mercy to his fellow servant. Theparable concludes with the king’s statement that no mercy willbe shown to those who do not show mercy and forgiveness to others.Hence, a forgiving attitude is a must for believers, who havereceived immeasurable mercy from God when he forgave their sins atthe time of repentance. The Lord’s Prayer also includes thebeliever’s forgiveness of others as being inseparably linked tothe request for forgiveness from God (Matt. 6:12). Jesus affirms thisidea in a subsequent statement: “For if you forgive otherpeople when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will alsoforgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Fatherwill not forgive your sins” (6:14–15).
Mercyis one of the eight blessings in the Beatitudes: “Blessed arethe merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Jesus’response to the critical Pharisees reveals that our merciful lifeshould precede our religious life (9:13). According to the parable ofthe good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the true neighbor is theone who shows mercy to the afflicted. Its conclusion, “Go anddo likewise” (10:37), requires believers to show mercy to theirsuffering neighbors. At the last judgment the righteous arecharacterized by their lives of showing mercy to the hungry, thethirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned(Matt. 25:37–40). In Luke 6:36, Jesus summarizes the law ofmercy: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”According to James, “judgment without mercy will be shown toanyone who has not been merciful”; however, “mercytriumphs over judgment” (James 2:12–13). And according tothe prophets, a merciless life is characteristic of godless people(Isa. 13:18; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42; Amos 1:11–12).
Itis by God’s mercy that believers can persevere during the timeof suffering (2Cor. 4:1). Their prayer is the channel throughwhich they draw God’s mercy. Hence, the writer of Hebrewsexhorts believers to “approach God’s throne of grace withconfidence, so that we may receive mercy” (Heb. 4:16).
In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb“to associate with.” This is an important connectionbecause relationships of various kinds are central to the issue ofneighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend(2Sam. 13:3), a rival (1Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1),or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentiallydefines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethicalresponsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29).Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technicalmeaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite”(=“brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literatureprohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) aswell as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife(Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor areprohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negativestipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 areclimactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically.Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev.19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even theresident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev.19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).
Whenthe NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that isroutinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotesLev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt.19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Whois my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan(Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more importantthan conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor wasanyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” inpurely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits ofone’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism,denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in”or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expandsocial, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality ofrelationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NTnow prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal.6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).
The concept of a people of God in the Bible may be traced toits origins in Gen. 12. Following the dispersion of humanity bydivine design in the previous chapter, God elects Abraham as ancestorof a nation. God grants to Abraham promises of protection, growth inthe number of offspring, and a homeland for his descendants andenvisions a flow of blessing to the nations through the seed ofAbraham.
Thepromise of numerous offspring comes to fruition in Exod. 1, to thepoint that the Israelites are perceived to be a threat by theEgyptians. In Exodus, God begins to refer to the descendants ofAbraham as his people (3:7; 6:7; 7:16; 18:1). They are to be a“kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation”(19:5–6), set apart from other nations. The gathering of thepeople at Sinai, in the view of Moses, is an important moment in theestablishment of the community, a moment marked by the conclusion ofa covenant (Deut. 5:2; 9:10–11).
TheFormer Prophets, however, tell a story of deterioration in therelationship. Israel and its kings consistently turn to the worshipof other deities (Judg. 2:11–23; 1Kings 11:1–8),rejecting God as king and overlord (1Sam. 8:19). After thereign of Solomon and because of Solomon’s acts of idolatry, thenation is torn in two (1Kings 11:1–13). Ultimately, bothpolitical entities, because of their persistence in apostasy, sufferdemise (2Kings 23:24–27).
Inresponse to Israel’s apostasy, the Latter Prophets envision adistinction between the national entity that is Israel and a “truepeople of God,” one abiding in covenantal faithfulness (e.g.,Isa. 11:11, 16; Amos 5:15; Hos. 1:10–11). The prophets,therefore, see within the nation a remnant that receives forgivenessand becomes the object of national restoration in the postexilicperiod (Hag. 1:2–15; Zech. 8:1–23). The covenantalfaithfulness of the remnant is marked by a passion for righteousnessand justice for the poor and oppressed (Isa. 11:1–5; Amos5:11–15).
Thespirit of restoration and redemption carries over into the NT (Rom.11:1–10). The Gospels present Jesus as one gathering a lostpeople (Matt. 15:24; Luke 2:25; John 1:31), redirecting them in thecorrect way (1Pet. 2:10). Employing a series of metaphors (thebody of Christ, a bride, the house of God, God’s flock) todescribe God’s people, the church, the concept of a faithfulremnant (the true Israel) persists. Thus, Paul speaks of a“circumcision of the heart” (not just of the flesh) thatmarks one as a true descendant of Abraham (Rom. 2:25–29;4:1–25). Similar to how the remnant is understood in the LatterProphets, the church of Jesus Christ will be characterized by itsconcern for covenantal faithfulness (Heb. 8:7–13),righteousness, and the pursuit of justice for the poor (James 2:1–7).
Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and“widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence ofGod’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor”is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or ofdiminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” wouldinclude most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was anorphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor”in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern forthe poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There willalways be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to beopenhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy inyour land” (15:11).
ThePoor
OldTestament. Allsections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, MinorProphets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions andwarnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithesand offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut.14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisionsthat allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they hadnot planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’sallowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8,15, 23).
Favorwas given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25;31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7;Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor werestrongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OToften warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasisthat God is their defender (2Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss.109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person madea vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge ofunfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong(Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workersbecause they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not asslaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were tobe judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppressionbecause of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).
Inaddition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year orJubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of theland were permitted to gather food from the land, including thefields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man becamepoor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by afamily member, the land would be returned to the man during theJubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced tosubmit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in theJubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).
NewTestament.The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression towardthe poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was markedby such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold theirown possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were tobe addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11;11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).
Kindnessto the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love ofGod. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindnesstoward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question theauthenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16;1John 3:17–18).
Furthermore,because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God choseto dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basisof material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the richwere expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1Cor. 11:20–22;Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).
Orphans
Otherspecific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern thosewithout parents and especially those without a father. Suchindividuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with theprovisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherlesswas strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17;10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to asthe provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18;Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leavehis followers as “orphans,” implying that he would notleave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the cleareststatements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, Jamesstates, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure andfaultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distressand to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James1:27). (See also Fatherless.)
Widows
Sincewidows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans invulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of specialprovisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod.22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of thepoor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings weregiven to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesusraised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracleespecially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’sdeath. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding whoshould be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: theymust be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to theirhusbands (1Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolatecity without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow”(18:7). (See also Widow.)
Terminology used in the KJV to denote partiality. The NTrepeatedly affirms that God is not a respecter of persons; that is,he does not show partiality based on worldly standards orappearances. Peter recognized this when God chose to pour out hisHoly Spirit on Gentile believers, not merely Jewish believers (Acts10:34). God will judge all people, including Christians, withimpartiality (Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1Pet. 1:17).Since God is not a respecter of persons, those who serve him shouldnot display partiality (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:19; Prov. 28:21; James2:1, 9).
Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result ofGod’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitudeby refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing Godas the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealthwas seen as God’s favor (1Kings 3:13). Wealth and richesare said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord”(Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is notnecessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty asign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty norwealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.
Balancedview.The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns againsthaving an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the sourceof wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trustingin riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty,and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God(1Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as theroot of all kinds of evil (1Tim. 6:9–10), and it istherefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdomof God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making richesthe center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of thewealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, thespirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on thematerial level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb.13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort anddiligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealththrough dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned(Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).
God-centeredperspective.Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centeredperspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we shouldtrust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’sconfession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord hastaken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows anadmirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of allthings, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’swealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable forthe use of our wealth (1Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seekthe kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God shouldbe avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Ourtreasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus shouldbe on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasureis, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).
Responsibilityand generosity.With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously tothose in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means todo good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1Tim. 6:18).Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of theneedy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut.15:5–11). In 2Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle ofgiving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you havedecided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion,for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exactionbut a willing gift (9:5).
TheChristian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for[our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty mightbecome rich” (2Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offeringsto Christ should not be a burden (1Cor. 9:11). Sacrificialgiving is an expression of love to the Lord (2Cor. 9:12). Italso generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2Cor.9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes(Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can betrusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13).Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their properuse has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1Tim. 6:19). One ofthe qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the loveof money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1Tim.3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1).James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy overthe poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicialfavoritism (James 2:1–9).
The term “Scripture” ( graphē)appears fifty-one times in the NT, used in reference to the OT.Sometimes the biblical writers cite a specific OT text as Scripture,while at other times they refer to Scripture in a more comprehensivemanner.
Mostreferences occur in the Gospels, in which Jesus details the natureand the extent of Scripture. Jesus opened the Scriptures from Mosesthrough all the prophets in order to explain everything about himselfas the anticipated Messiah (Luke 24:44–45). The propheticquality of Scripture is evidenced in OT passages that are referencedin the NT as being fulfilled in his birth, life, betrayal, death,burial, and resurrection.
Jesuscharacterized the Scriptures as the powerful source of eternal life(John 5:39; 7:38). They have abiding authority and cannot be broken(10:35). He highlighted the dynamic quality of the Scriptures when hesaid that they speak, testify, and declare.
InActs, Scripture is the authoritative source from which the apostlePaul explains the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (17:2;18:28). Apollos is distinguished as a man with a thorough knowledgeof Scripture, and the Bereans were known for their investigativeinquiry into the truthfulness of the Scriptures.
Thebook of Romans opens (1:2) and closes (16:25–26) withreferences to the gospel as Scripture. Throughout this letter Paulbroadens Scripture referents beyond Christ and his redemptive work toinclude the themes of divine power, the nature of belief, and theprophetic ministry of Elijah. Finally, Paul characterizes Scriptureas holy, prophetic, and intimately associated with the Lord himself.The Scriptures are a source not only of eternal life but also ofencouragement.
InGalatians, Scripture includes the prophetic anticipation of Gentileparticipation in the gospel (3:8). It is a convicting authority thatshows all people to be bound by sin and unbelief (3:22). Thehistorical narrative account of Gen. 21 is also regarded as Scriptureand used in an analogous typological manner (Gal. 4:21–31).
ThePastoral Letters and the book of James cite legal sections of the OTunder the heading of Scripture (1Tim. 5:18 [quoting Deut. 25:4;Lev. 19:13]; James 2:8). The most significant references to Scriptureare 2Tim. 3:16 and 2Pet. 1:20–21 because theydefine the origin, nature, and function of Scripture. In addition,2Tim. 3:16 details the sufficiency of Scripture in its abilityto teach, rebuke, correct, and train. In every period of history,Scripture is sufficient in extent and content to sustain people andnurture their relationship with God.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
James 2:1-13
is mentioned in the definition.
Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.
In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).
Articles of Clothing
A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.
In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).
Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).
In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).
Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).
Special Functions of Clothing
According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).
Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).
Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).
Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.
Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).
Amos is largely concerned with judgment oracles against thenations, particularly Judah and Israel. Memorable for the numericalparallelisms that begin a series of speeches against various nations(“For three sins of X . . . , even for four . . .[1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6]), the book also concludes with apowerful anticipation of the restoration of Israel and “David’sfallen tent,” which the NT understands to point to Jesus,David’s greater son.
HistoricalBackground
Thesuperscription pinpoints Amos’s prophecy to a time “twoyears before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah andJeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel” (1:1). The precisedate of the earthquake is unknown, but we can approximately date thereign of Uzziah to 769–733 BC and of Jeroboam II to784–748 BC, so it appears that Amos operated sometime in theconfluence of Uzziah’s reign with Jeroboam’s (769–748BC).
Theera of these two kings was a time of great material prosperity(2 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 26:6–8). Assyriawas relatively weak, though it had conquered one of Israel’scloser enemies, Syria, with its capital at Damascus. In the absenceof these or other major rivals, Israel and Judah could grow. However,along with economic growth came spiritual confusion and ethicaldarkness, which Amos addresses.
AlthoughAmos preaches during a period of prosperity for Israel, he foreseesGod’s coming judgment against their sins in the form of apowerful enemy (3:11; 5:3, 27; 6:6–14; 7:9, 17; 9:4). Thisenemy would turn out to be Assyria, which would begin its powerfulwestward expansion under Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) andeventually incorporate Israel under Shalmaneser V and Sargon IIin 722 BC. Judah would find itself under the shadow of this emergentsuperpower.
Amoscame from Tekoa, a town just five miles south of Bethlehem, whichitself is four miles south of Jerusalem. Although he was from Judah,his ministry was primarily directed toward the northern kingdom,prompting a northern priest, Amaziah, to tell him to go back to wherehe came from (7:10–17). Amos describes himself as a shepherdwho tended flocks (1:1; 7:15) and as one who took care ofsycamore-fig trees (7:14). Debate has been incessant about whetherthis points to his placement in the lower or upper classes ofsociety.
LiteraryConsiderations and Outline
Thebook of Amos contains a number of oracles, mostly judgment, but somesalvation. These oracles are directed toward the surrounding nations(Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab) and then Judah andIsrael, and in that order. The order, beginning with foreign nationsand then moving to Judah and finally Israel, is intentional. Theoriginal audience that Amos addresses was located in Judah andespecially in Israel. One can imagine a sympathetic audience to thedeclaration of violent judgment on the nations, but then Amosskillfully moves to God’s own people. As the followingstructure demonstrates, Israel was the main audience that receivedthe most sustained chastisem*nt:
I.Superscription (1:1)
II.Introduction to the Message (1:2)
III.The Prophetic Oracles (1:3–6:14)
A.Oracles of Judgment against the Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:5)
1.Syria (represented by Damascus; 1:3–5)
2.Philistia (represented by Gaza; 1:6–8)
3.Tyre (1:9–10)
4.Edom (1:11–12)
5.Ammon (1:13–15)
6.Moab (2:1–3)
7.Judah (2:4–5)
B.Oracles of Judgment against Israel (2:6–6:14)
IV.The Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:15)
Notablein the final section is the concluding oracle, which is one of thefew salvation oracles in the book. Amos 9:11–15 in particularlooks forward to the future restoration of Israel: the restoration ofthe house of David, which is pictured as a renewal of David’sfallen tent.
TheologicalMessage
Amoshas a message of divine judgment against God’s people,particularly those in the northern kingdom. God is sovereign and willsee to the appropriate punishment. God controls the nations, so hecan raise up an enemy to bring destruction on Israel as well as otheroffending nations. Although the nations are the tool of his anger,there should be no mistake that it is God himself who is behind theirpunishment (1:4; 3:2, 14; 9:4).
Thepunishment is for idolatry and ethical violations, particularlysocial injustice. God’s people worshiped false gods (2:8; 5:5,26; 7:9–13; 8:14). Also, the wealthy classes indulged in sinsand oppressed the lower classes (2:7–8; 5:12; 8:6).
Amosis also well known as the first to use the language of the “dayof the Lord” (5:18–20). Although this appears to be thefirst mention of this day in Scripture, the way Amos refers to itindicates that it was already known in his society. The peoplethought that the day of the Lord would be good for them, but Amossays that because of their sins, it will be horrible. The day of theLord is the day of God’s coming as a warrior to judge sinners.
NewTestament Connections
TheNT shares Amos’s concern for social justice (e.g., 1 Cor.11:22; James 2:1–10). More specifically, Amos is quoted in theNT a number of times, showing that the NT authors believe that hisexpectations for the future are coming to fulfillment in their time(compare Amos 5:15 with Rom. 12:9; Amos 5:25 with Acts 7:24). Mostinteresting is the early church’s understanding of Amos9:11–12, quoted by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:16–17.Here one of the leaders, James, argues that the addition of theGentiles into the people of God fulfills God’s promise toreunify Israel.
Terminology
TheNT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means“gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greekthe term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Inparticular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of thecitizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city.Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not tothe citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, theywere not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records threeinstances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Themost important background for the Christian use of the term is theLXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundredtimes, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. Whileqahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah,the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering,translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’ssacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, whereqahal is linked with the covenant.
Inthe NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’speople 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although theword occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it isof special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instancesin James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn fromthis usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and theplural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those whoprofess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsiadesignates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28;15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23;Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation(1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
TheNature of the Church
Thenature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning ofone word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a richarray of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are thosemetaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church,five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom ofGod, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and thebody of Christ.
Thepeople of God.Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in thecovenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be mypeople” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer.7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28;Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus,the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras whor*sponded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin restsexclusively in God’s grace.
Tospeak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT andthe NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship betweenthe church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize thematter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the churchand Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuitybetween them.
Continuitybetween the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that thechurch and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuousrelationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel insome sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding toDeut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in thewilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from theintimate association noted earlier existing between the wordsekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified bythe phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewedin some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein theprototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal.4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).
Second,Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OTnames for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact.Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph.2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people”(1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29;Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16;Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “theelect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood”(1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Discontinuitybetween the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totallyidentical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes therelationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological(end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is aprogression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor.5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced bythe fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel,without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter asGentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Althoughthe church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be thepermanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).
Thekingdom of God.Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping ofthe two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete.The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and thesecond aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the ageto come has broken into this age, and now the two existsimultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining therelationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because thechurch also exists in the tension that results from the overlappingof the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as theforeshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition:first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, thechurch is not equal to the kingdom of God.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after theresurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about thechurch. However, there are early signs of the church in the teachingand ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general,Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in thathe gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted thebeginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant.More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in twopassages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesuspromised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition,thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of thechurch overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that thekingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks theintimate association between the church and the kingdom. The secondpassage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlikethe Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimatelyrelated as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does notequate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christianspreached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g.,Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is theinstrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt.16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church becomethe keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
Theeschatological temple of God.Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple inthe future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9;1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he wasgoing to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of thefulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited thechurch, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36).Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit inthe Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor.3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; seealso Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However,that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in thepreceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for thechurch to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fullyaccomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In themeantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform theirsacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb.13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
Thebride of Christ.The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (seeIsa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied toChrist and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, hassacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph.5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is tobe faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia theofficial wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternalunion of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9;21:1–2).
Thebody of Christ.The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to thePauline literature and constitutes one of the most significantconcepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph.4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is todemonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within thechurch, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body ofChrist is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of theend time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage ofthe image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that thechurch, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to gospiritually. It is not yet complete.
Sacraments
Atthe heart of the expression of the church’s faith are thesacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The formersymbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter providesspiritual sustenance for the church.
Baptism.Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Threeobservations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament.First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association ofrepentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek.36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipatedChristian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance inexpectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiahwould exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesusas Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may bean allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes thatlead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practicedbaptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 //Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34;cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor.1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thesepassages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism isintimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the personwith the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates theperson into the community of believers.
Lord’sSupper.The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This ritesymbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as itcelebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblicaldata concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted byChrist (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20;1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of thePassover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introducedtwo changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened breadwith a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; hereplaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood onthe cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early churchpracticed the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunctionwith the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). Atwofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NTauthors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways:participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death ofJesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’sSupper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination pointof the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supperinvolves identification with the body of Christ, the community offaith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).
Worship
Theultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ andin the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). Theearly church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met inhomes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15;Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many JewishChristians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, theestablished time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday,the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Theearly church most probably patterned its order of worship after thesynagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess.1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col.1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col.4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to theneedy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9;James 2:15–17).
Serviceand Organization
Fiveobservations emerge from the NT regarding the service andorganization of the early church. First, the ministry of the churchcenters on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believersby God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good ofothers (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believerpossesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third,it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christmatures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph.4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership inthe NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called“pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28;1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13),there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy”and the “laity” in the church of the first century;rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all thesaints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth,spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
The human foot is referred to in the Bible both literally(e.g., Exod. 21:24; Lev. 14:14; Luke 8:29) and figuratively (e.g.,Prov. 4:27; Matt. 18:8; 1Cor. 12:15), and the word “foot”is also used to represent the base of a mountain or a hill (e.g.,Exod. 19:12; Josh. 18:16).
Thecommon footwear was the sandal, which covered only the soles. Becauseroads were generally very dusty and dirty, feet needed to be washedfrequently. Figuratively, a conquering king placed his foot on theneck of the conquered leader, symbolizing dominance (Josh. 10:24).Thus, placing someone under one’s foot represented totaldominance (Ps. 110:1; 1Cor. 15:25). To “sit at the feet”of a person indicated a willingness to learn from or serve a master(Luke 10:39; James 2:3). To “fall at the feet” showed aposture of humility (1Sam. 25:24). The washing of feet was anact of hospitality (Luke 7:44) and a show of humility (John 13:4–15)demonstrated to an honored guest. To set foot in a place sometimessuggested that the person or people would take possession of it(Deut. 1:36; 11:24). The “feet of God” represent thesalvation of God’s people (Zech. 14:4).
Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.
In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).
Articles of Clothing
A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.
In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).
Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).
In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).
Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).
Special Functions of Clothing
According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).
Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).
Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).
Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.
Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
The concept of justice pervades the Bible, especially, thoughnot exclusively, the OT. The key biblical terms that convey thisconcept include mishpat, tsedeq/tsedaqah, yashar in the OT and thedik- word group in the NT (whose noun and verb forms are translatedrespectively as “righteous” and “justify” ortheir respective cognates). The biblical concept of justice is anembodiment of two contemporary concepts: righteousness and justice.The former designates compliance with the divine norm, while thelatter emphasizes conformity to a societal standard of what is rightand equitable. Focusing exclusively on the latter hinders the correctunderstanding of justice in the biblical sense. Additionally, thebiblical understanding of this concept is encumbered by the use ofdiffering English terms to translate the same Hebrew or Greek terms.
Mishpatand Tsedaqah
Mishpatinherently encompasses the idea of judicial activism consisting inthe provision of standard criteria (legislation, instructions,directives) for conduct and adjudication, and/or the actualarbitration between parties with the goal of ascertaining culpabilityor otherwise and administering the requisite sanctions or acquittal.Tsedaqah, on the other hand, emphasizes the established norm of justorder for right conduct both in the larger society and forindividuals. Whereas mishpat emphasizes the action that seeks toestablish or enforce right patterns of behavior for the common good,tsedaqah stresses the practice (or lack thereof) of such a norm insociety, or between individuals, or an individual’s compliancewith such a norm.
Whenused in combination as a hendiadys (or word pair), these two termssignify an inherent requirement for conformity to an established norm(whether in the religious sphere or in civil society) or therequirement of loyalty or right conduct between individuals. To theperson who stands to benefit from this norm, it approximates a right(i.e., a claim). Conversely, implicit duty is placed upon the personwho ensures the conformity to such an established norm. This fact isbetter appreciated when we reckon with the covenantal nature ofrequirements for justice in the ancient world, in which both partieshave both claim and responsibility. Broadly speaking, this conceptalso implies good governance, which accrues order to life and commonbenefits to all members of the community.
Thisidea is exemplified even in passages that do not use this precisephraseology (mishpat utsedaqah). Judah’s widoweddaughter-in-law, Tamar, had an inherent right to be provided with a(kinsman-redeemer) husband to raise up progeny for her deceasedhusband, while Judah had the incumbent duty of giving her in leviratemarriage to his surviving son. When Judah failed to execute his duty,Tamar entrapped him into an incestuous relationship, from which sheconceived. When condemned to die for adultery in a clannish courtsetting, Tamar revealed the identity of her unborn child’sfather, to which Judah responded by saying, “She is morerighteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah”(Gen. 38:26). That is, she acted more in conformity to the norm thanhe did. In another instance, Yahweh, while challenging the Judeansconcerning their loyalty to him in a covenant lawsuit setting, asks,“A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am afather, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is therespect due me?” (Mal. 1:6). It is Yahweh’s right asfather and master to receive honor and respect, while it is theirduty to give him both.
Godas the Source and Model of Justice
Tobe just, then, implies conformity to that which is right—yashar(the standard or norm). In Scripture, this standard is the revealeddivine will and character. Compliance to it is often expressed inbiblical narrative as doing what is “right [or good] in theLord’s sight” (Deut. 6:18; 12:28; 1Kings 14:8;22:43), while its antithesis is doing what is “evil in the eyesof the Lord” (Judg. 2:11; 1Kings 11:6; 14:22) or doingwhat some human figure(s) “saw fit” (Deut. 12:8; Judg.17:6; 21:25).
Therefore,the source of justice is God himself. It flows from his essentialcharacter as one who is both just and righteous, whose actions areflawless, perfect, upright, and just (Deut. 32:4; 1Sam. 12:7;2Sam. 22:31; Job 37:23; Ps. 89:14). God is the righteouslawgiver, hence the one who establishes the norm for right conduct(Deut. 4:4–8; Ps. 19:7–9). He requires justice of all hiscreatures (cf. Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12, 28–29). God alsojudges righteously (Gen. 18:25; 1Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:4, 9; Jer.9:24) and defends and vindicates the weak and oppressed (Deut. 10:18;Ps. 103:6). The responsibility of maintaining justice in the humancommunity, however, he delegates to its leaders, such as civilmagistrates or political officials, and requires them to execute thisresponsibility with integrity, equity, and impartiality (Deut.1:16–17; 16:18–20; Ps. 82:2–4; Prov. 31:8–9;John 7:24; 1Pet. 2:13–14). God’s requirement ofjustice in the human community is not limited to its leaders only; itis incumbent upon everyone therein (Ps. 15:1–5; Mic. 6:8; Zech.7:9; 8:17; Matt. 23:23).
Executingjustice requires doing all that is essential to bring about thedivine order implicit in creation and explicit in revealed truth, toproduce harmony in all relationships in which humankind is involved(divine-human, human-human, and human-nature). This has the twofoldresult of restraining evil and advancing the benefits of just livingwithin the human society. Thus, the fruits of justice are to be seenin all spheres of human life, such as spirituality (2Cor.5:17–21), morality and ethics (Phil. 4:8; Col. 3:5–9;Titus 2:11–13), social justice (Exod. 22:21–24; Isa.56:1; Amos 2:6–7; Ezek. 22:7–29; James 2:1–9), andeconomic justice (Amos 5:11; 8:4–6; James 5:1–6), as wellas in the environment (Deut. 20:19–20; Pss. 96:9–13;104:1–31; Eccles. 2:5–6; Rom. 8:19–22).
Additionally,the outworking of justice produces (re)distribution and retribution.Distribution means that those blessed materially share of theirblessings with those in need (Deut. 15:1–15; Ps. 112:5–9;Prov. 28:27; Isa. 58:1–11; 2Cor. 8–9). Retributionrelates to the vindication and deliverance of the oppressed andjudgment on the wicked (1Sam. 2:7–10; Job 36:5–10;Ps. 72:4; Luke 4:17–20). This is both attested in biblicalIsrael’s experience (Isa. 1:17–20; 5:1–9; Jer.5:26–29; Mic. 2:1–3) and is being anticipated at thefinal judgment (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:1–3; Matt. 25:31–46;2Thess. 1:5–10). The vindicated obtain God’s loveand grace, while the judged receive his justice. Justice and love,therefore, are the two sides of God’s holiness.
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)
Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result ofGod’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitudeby refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing Godas the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealthwas seen as God’s favor (1Kings 3:13). Wealth and richesare said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord”(Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is notnecessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty asign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty norwealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.
Balancedview.The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns againsthaving an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the sourceof wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trustingin riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty,and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God(1Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as theroot of all kinds of evil (1Tim. 6:9–10), and it istherefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdomof God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making richesthe center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of thewealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, thespirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on thematerial level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb.13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort anddiligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealththrough dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned(Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).
God-centeredperspective.Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centeredperspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we shouldtrust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’sconfession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord hastaken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows anadmirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of allthings, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’swealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable forthe use of our wealth (1Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seekthe kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God shouldbe avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Ourtreasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus shouldbe on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasureis, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).
Responsibilityand generosity.With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously tothose in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means todo good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1Tim. 6:18).Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of theneedy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut.15:5–11). In 2Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle ofgiving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you havedecided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion,for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exactionbut a willing gift (9:5).
TheChristian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for[our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty mightbecome rich” (2Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offeringsto Christ should not be a burden (1Cor. 9:11). Sacrificialgiving is an expression of love to the Lord (2Cor. 9:12). Italso generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2Cor.9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes(Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can betrusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13).Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their properuse has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1Tim. 6:19). One ofthe qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the loveof money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1Tim.3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1).James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy overthe poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicialfavoritism (James 2:1–9).
Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and“widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence ofGod’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor”is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or ofdiminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” wouldinclude most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was anorphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor”in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern forthe poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There willalways be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to beopenhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy inyour land” (15:11).
ThePoor
OldTestament. Allsections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, MinorProphets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions andwarnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithesand offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut.14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisionsthat allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they hadnot planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’sallowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8,15, 23).
Favorwas given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25;31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7;Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor werestrongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OToften warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasisthat God is their defender (2Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss.109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person madea vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge ofunfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong(Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workersbecause they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not asslaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were tobe judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppressionbecause of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).
Inaddition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year orJubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of theland were permitted to gather food from the land, including thefields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man becamepoor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by afamily member, the land would be returned to the man during theJubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced tosubmit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in theJubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).
NewTestament.The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression towardthe poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was markedby such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold theirown possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were tobe addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11;11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).
Kindnessto the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love ofGod. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindnesstoward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question theauthenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16;1John 3:17–18).
Furthermore,because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God choseto dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basisof material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the richwere expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1Cor. 11:20–22;Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).
Orphans
Otherspecific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern thosewithout parents and especially those without a father. Suchindividuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with theprovisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherlesswas strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17;10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to asthe provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18;Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leavehis followers as “orphans,” implying that he would notleave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the cleareststatements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, Jamesstates, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure andfaultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distressand to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James1:27). (See also Fatherless.)
Widows
Sincewidows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans invulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of specialprovisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod.22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of thepoor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings weregiven to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesusraised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracleespecially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’sdeath. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding whoshould be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: theymust be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to theirhusbands (1Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolatecity without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow”(18:7). (See also Widow.)
Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and“widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence ofGod’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor”is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or ofdiminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” wouldinclude most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was anorphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor”in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern forthe poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There willalways be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to beopenhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy inyour land” (15:11).
ThePoor
OldTestament. Allsections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, MinorProphets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions andwarnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithesand offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut.14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisionsthat allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they hadnot planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’sallowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8,15, 23).
Favorwas given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25;31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7;Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor werestrongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OToften warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasisthat God is their defender (2Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss.109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person madea vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge ofunfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong(Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workersbecause they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not asslaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were tobe judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppressionbecause of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).
Inaddition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year orJubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of theland were permitted to gather food from the land, including thefields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man becamepoor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by afamily member, the land would be returned to the man during theJubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced tosubmit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in theJubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).
NewTestament.The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression towardthe poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was markedby such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold theirown possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were tobe addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11;11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).
Kindnessto the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love ofGod. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindnesstoward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question theauthenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16;1John 3:17–18).
Furthermore,because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God choseto dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basisof material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the richwere expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1Cor. 11:20–22;Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).
Orphans
Otherspecific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern thosewithout parents and especially those without a father. Suchindividuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with theprovisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherlesswas strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17;10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to asthe provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18;Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leavehis followers as “orphans,” implying that he would notleave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the cleareststatements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, Jamesstates, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure andfaultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distressand to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James1:27). (See also Fatherless.)
Widows
Sincewidows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans invulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of specialprovisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod.22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of thepoor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings weregiven to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesusraised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracleespecially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’sdeath. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding whoshould be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: theymust be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to theirhusbands (1Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolatecity without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow”(18:7). (See also Widow.)
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.
In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).
Articles of Clothing
A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.
In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).
Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).
In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).
Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).
Special Functions of Clothing
According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).
Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).
Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).
Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.
Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).
Today, vengeance normally is understood as retaliation for asuffered wrong, an action arising from vindictiveness and antipathytoward its object. Such an understanding runs counter to the biblicalconcept of vengeance. Indeed, the negative individual vengefulnessassociated with the term is either unequivocally forbidden or shownto be wrongheaded (Exod. 23:4–5; Lev. 19:18; Ezek. 25:12–16;Jer. 20:10–11; 1Pet. 3:9). Thus, the term is betterunderstood by considering the Hebrew term naqam(or its synonyms baqash and gemul [Josh. 22:23; 1Sam. 20:16;2Sam. 4:11; Ps. 94:2; Isa. 59:18; Obad. 15]) and the Greek termekdikēsis.A close study of the biblical terms suggests that vengeance has to dowith the administration of justice: the rendition of appropriatesanctions against a violator of established norms, and the provisionof justice or vindication to the victimized or oppressed. Onerecurrent motif in the incidences of God’s vengeance is itsfunction in stopping or recompensing injustice (Isa. 59:14–18).The prerogative of such a solemn task rests with someone withlegitimate authority. Such authority is ultimately God’s (Deut.32:35, 39; cf. Ps. 94:1–3; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:19). Indeed,the subject of four out of every five occurrences of “vengeance”in the Bible is God.
Inthat capacity, God combines, almost indistinguishably, the roles of asovereign, supreme judge, and warrior in his execution of vengeanceon the errant (Exod. 15:1–7; Ps. 89:6–18; Isa. 51:4–5;52:10; Jer. 20:12). He sometimes delegates this function to angels(Gen. 18–19; Exod. 12:23; 2Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23);nations, or national armies (Deut. 28:45–50; Isa. 10:5; Jer.50:9–15); Israel (Deut. 9:1–5; 7:1; 20:16–17; Josh.6:17–25; 8:24); kings, political leaders, and judicial officers(Deut. 25:1; Jer. 27:6; Rom. 13:1–4; 1Pet. 2:13–14);and nonintelligent beings or elements of nature (Exod. 23:28–30;Amos 4:6–11).
God’svengeance has its moorings in his holiness (Jer. 50:28–29; cf.Deut. 32:4). The violation of his holiness arouses his justice, whichdemands just retribution for the offense (2Sam. 12:1–12;Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 31:3–11). Put differently, God’srighteousness is the obverse of his vengeance. One’s experienceof either is contingent upon one’s relationship with God. Inother words, his vengeance flows from his justice (Ps. 89:31–32;Nah. 1:3). God’s justice is counterbalanced by his love (cf.James 2:13). For that reason, his vengeance on his covenant people isoften more corrective than punitive and anticipates their repentance,redemption, and restoration (Isa. 1:24–26; Jer. 3:1–17;46:28). Ultimately, he forgives his people, whom he disciplines (Pss.89:19–33; 99:8; Zeph. 3:7; Rom. 5:6–11).
Therefore,there always is a close link between God’s vengeance on thewicked and the salvation of his people (Isa. 34:8; 49:26; 61:1–3;Jer. 51:36). This is why the nations that he uses to punish Israelend up being punished themselves because of their hubris andoverreaching attempts to annihilate his covenant people (Isa.47:1–11; Jer. 46:10; 50–51), their failure to recognizethe God who has prospered them, and their opposition to him (Deut.32:26; Mic. 5:14). Thus, God’s people come to expect or evencall for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Ps. 94:1–7;Jer. 11:20; 15:15; Lam. 3:60–66; Hab. 1:2–4). Suchexpectation is usually futuristic and parallels Israelite hope forthe impending “day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:9–11; Jer.46:10; Luke 21:20–24; 2Thess. 1:6–8). Thus, thecries of God’s people for his vengeance on their enemiesrepresent the abandonment of personal revenge in favor of God’sacts of justice and vindication—petitions for the rule of God’slaw over mere human justice (Pss. 58:11; 79:10; Rev. 6:10).
Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result ofGod’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitudeby refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing Godas the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealthwas seen as God’s favor (1Kings 3:13). Wealth and richesare said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord”(Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is notnecessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty asign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty norwealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.
Balancedview.The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns againsthaving an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the sourceof wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trustingin riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty,and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God(1Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as theroot of all kinds of evil (1Tim. 6:9–10), and it istherefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdomof God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making richesthe center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of thewealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, thespirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on thematerial level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb.13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort anddiligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealththrough dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned(Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).
God-centeredperspective.Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centeredperspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we shouldtrust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’sconfession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord hastaken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows anadmirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of allthings, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’swealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable forthe use of our wealth (1Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seekthe kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God shouldbe avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Ourtreasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus shouldbe on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasureis, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).
Responsibilityand generosity.With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously tothose in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means todo good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1Tim. 6:18).Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of theneedy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut.15:5–11). In 2Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle ofgiving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you havedecided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion,for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exactionbut a willing gift (9:5).
TheChristian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for[our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty mightbecome rich” (2Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offeringsto Christ should not be a burden (1Cor. 9:11). Sacrificialgiving is an expression of love to the Lord (2Cor. 9:12). Italso generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2Cor.9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes(Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can betrusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13).Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their properuse has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1Tim. 6:19). One ofthe qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the loveof money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1Tim.3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1).James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy overthe poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicialfavoritism (James 2:1–9).
Showing
1
to
50
of195
results
1. Honor Code
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The honor code for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point is as follows: “A cadet does not lie, cheat, or steal; nor tolerate anyone who does.”The goal of the code is that cadets: Learn and practice the essential leader responsibilities of establishing a healthy ethical climate within a unit. This honor code is so stringent that even one violation at any time during the four years of study, including even the day before graduation, requires automatic expulsion of the guilty party.
2. One Bad Link
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Assume that a ship is anchored at port with an anchor that has 613 links in its chain, representing the 613 commands in the Mosaic Law. If only one link breaks, the ship will be set adrift, so the 612 links that did hold count for nothing if just one is broken.
Or consider your situation if you had fallen over the edge of a very high cliff and were clinging to a chain for dear life. How many links of that chain must break before you would plummet to your death?
The Mosaic Law is the same, according to James 2:10. If you fail in one point, you might as well have blown it all—you’re dead either way.
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. 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.
5. This House for You
Illustration
Johnny Dean
Once there was a rich man who wanted to do something good for someone in his community. He spent a few days just traveling around his neighborhood and the general vicinity. During his travels, he noticed the poor living conditions of a certain carpenter who lived nearby. So the rich man went to the carpenter and hired him to build a house.
"Now this isn't just any old house you'll be building," the rich man said to the carpenter. "I want you to build this house for a very special person. I want you to use only the finest building materials, hire the best workmen you can find, and spare no expense. I'm going to be out of town for a couple of months, and I would like to see the house finished when I return."
The carpenter saw this as a great opportunity to make some extra money. He skimped on building materials, hired winos that hung out at the local bus station to help with the work, paying them as little as he could. He covered their mistakes with paint and plaster and cut corners at every opportunity.
When the rich man returned from his trip, the carpenter brought him the keys to the house and said, "I followed your instructions and built the house just as you told me to."
"I'm glad you did," the rich man said. Then he handed the keys back to carpenter saying, "The special person I wanted the house for is you. It's yours! You and your family can have it as my gift to you, and I'm sure you want to move in right away!" Perhaps one of the most difficult factors of Christian living is that we never know how or where or when God will act. We don't know exactly how God might help us, regardless of the time we spend in prayer. The God we worship and serve is a God who constantly surprises us. And this inability to predict God's movements can be very frustrating sometimes.
6. Neighbors Who Never Met - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
What parable would make a man with three doctoral degrees (one in medicine, one in theology, one in philosophy) leave civilization with all of its culture and amenities and depart for the jungles of darkest Africa? What parable could induce a man, who was recognized as one of the best concert organists in all of Europe, go to a place where there were no organs to play. What parable would so intensely motivate a man that he would give up a teaching position in Vienna, Austria to go and deal with people who were so deprived that they were still living in the superstitions of the dark ages for all practical purposes. The man who I am talking about, of course, is Dr. Albert Schweitzer. And the single parable that so radically altered his life, according to him, was our text for this morning. It was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
The Rich Man and Lazarus were neighbors, you know. They saw each other every day. Oh, not socially you understand, but there was contact. Every day the Rich Man saw this beggar at his front gate. Who were these men?
We shall call the Rich Man Dives [pronounced ‘Dive-ees': it's Latin for "Rich Man" as he has been called for centuries] Dives would have felt very comfortable living in our present time. He was a progressive kind of a guy. He was self-indulgent and this is the age of self-indulgency. The contrasting life-styles of these two men is so obvious that you can't miss it. Dives was a connoisseur, a lover of the arts, one who knows and appreciates fine living, four star restaurants.
We are told in vs. 19 that he habitually dressed in purple. Purple was known as the color of royalty because it was the most expensive dye in the ancient world. Only the upper echelon and the high priest could afford it. We are also told that his undergarments were made of fine linen. Linen, the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
The other man in the story is Lazarus. How can we describe Lazarus? Lararus is homeless. We are told in vs. 20 that he was a cripple. Lazarus barely made it from day to day, living off the leftovers thrown to him by Dives as he daily passed him. He is just a survivor, that's all you can say of him.
One day, said Jesus, both men died. Death after all is the great equalizer. Death does not care about your social standing, your color, or your standing in the community. Lazarus, said Jesus, was carried away by the angel of death unto heaven, where he occupied the seat of honor next to Abraham. About Dives, the rich man, all that Jesus says is that he was buried. Isn't that strange that that is all that he says? After all, Dives funeral must having been something that the community would remember for years to come. Apparently, however, that fact failed to impress Jesus. Oh, Jesus did add one additional fact about Dives' death that may be of interest to you. His soul was sent to hell.
This is an unnerving story. I can well see why this was the irritating grain of sand in Albert Schweitzer's oyster. Why is this story so bothersome? For a few moments this morning I would like to share exactly why. It is bothersome because….
- First, it shows how God reverses the standards of the world.
- Second, it is a terrible fate for a man who was not mean.
- Third, the rich man begs to warn his living brothers.
7. The Gospel According to the Hebrews
Illustration
William Barclay
There is an apocryphal gospel called "The Gospel According to the Hebrews" most of which is lost; in one of the fragments which remain there is an account of this incident which sheds a little light on its meaning. Here is how that ancient text records this story:
The rich man said to Jesus, "Master, what good thing must I do really to live?" Jesus said to him, "Man, obey the law and the prophets." He said, "I have done so." Jesus said to him, "Go, sell all that you possess, distribute it among the poor, and come, follow me!" The rich man began to scratch his head because he did not like this command. The Lord said to him, Why do you say that you have obeyed the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law, "You must love your neighbor as yourself," and look you there are many brothers of yours, sons of Abraham, who are dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, and not one single thing goes out of it to them." And he turned and said to Simon, his Disciple, who was sitting beside him, "Simon, son of Jonas, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
There we have the secret and the tragedy of the rich young ruler. He was living utterly selfishly. He was rich, and yet he gave nothing away. His real God was comfort, and what he really worshiped were his own possessions and his wealth. That is why Jesus told him to give it all away.
8. Which Kingdom?
Illustration
James Merritt
I heard about a Sunday School teacher that told his class about the story of the rich man and Lazarus. He highlighted the good end of Lazarus and the bad end of the rich man. He pointed out how one man went to hell and the other man went to heaven. He also pointed out how rich one man was and how poor the other man was. After the teacher taught his lesson he said to the class, "Now which would you rather be, boys, the rich man or Lazarus?" One boy raised his hand and said, "Well, I'd like to be the rich man while I'm alive, and Lazarus when I'm dead."
Well, that's what we all wish, but you have to decide which kingdom you are going to be a part of on this earth. You've got to decide what you are going to surrender your life to on this earth. You've got to decide before you leave this earth where you are going to spend eternity after you leave this earth. Whatever decision you make, when you die you will live with for all eternity.
9. 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.
10. The Parable of the Five Brothers
Illustration
Joachim Jeremias
The first point is concerned with the reversal of fortune in the after-life (vv. 19-26), the second (vv. 27-31) with the petition of the rich man that Abraham may send Lazarus to his five brethren. . . [Jesus places] the stress is on the second point. That means that Jesus does not want to comment on a social problem, nor does he intend to give teaching about the after-life, but he relates the parable to warn men who resemble the brothers of the rich man of the impending danger. Hence the poor Lazarus is only a secondary figure, introduced by way of contrast. The parable is about the five brothers, and it should not be styled the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, but the parable of the Six Brothers.
The surviving brothers, who have their counterpart in the men of the Flood generation [Jeremias' reference to Noah's generation], living a careless life, heedless of the rumble of the approaching flood (Matt. 24:37-39), are men of this world, like their dead brother. Like him they live in selfish luxury, deaf to God's word, in the belief that death ends all (v. 28). Scornfully, Jesus was asked by these skeptical worldlings for a valid proof of a life after death, if they were to be paying heed to his warning. Jesus wanted to open their eyes, but to grant their demand would not be the right way to do so. Why did Jesus refuse it? Because its fulfillment would have been meaningless; even the greatest wonder, resurrection, would be in vain [in John 11:46 ff. the raising of Lazarus served to complete the hardening of the Jews]. He who will not submit to the word of God, will not be converted by a miracle. The demand for a sign is an evasion and a sign of impenitence. Hence the sentence is pronounced: "God will never give a sign to this generation" (Mark 8.12).
11. King of the Poor
Illustration
Staff
Long ago, there ruled in Persia a wise and good king. He loved his people. He wanted to know how they lived. He wanted to know about their hardships. Often he dressed in the clothes of a working man or a beggar, and went to the homes of the poor. No one whom he visited thought that he was their ruler. One time he visited a very poor man who lived in a cellar. He ate the coarse food the poor man ate. He spoke cheerful, kind words to him. Then he left. Later he visited the poor man again and disclosed his identity by saying, "I am your king!" The king thought the man would surely ask for some gift or favor, but he didn't. Instead he said, "You left your palace and your glory to visit me in this dark, dreary place. You ate the course food I ate. You brought gladness to my heart! To others you have given your rich gifts. To me you have given yourself!"
God is willing to make most any accommodation to have fellowship with us. Even becoming human.
12. 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?!
13. Who Can Be Saved?
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
"Zacchaeus was a wee little man, a wee little man was he ...." Many people have learned that song in Sunday school. We might be tempted to think, therefore, that this is a story "for children only." Nothing could be further from the truth. The story of Zacchaeus is one of the most important stories for children and adults in the entire Gospel of Luke. It's important because it tells us how Christians can live with wealth. It's important because the story of Zacchaeus tells how it is that we can be saved.
Zacchaeus was a man who gouged his riches out of his people in the form of additional taxes. He was a man hated by the people of Jericho. Zacchaeus was a sinner. He had broken most of the laws of his people. Zacchaeus stands quite in contrast to a rich young ruler whose story Luke has just told (Luke 18:18-30). The rich young ruler is a righteous man. He has kept most of the laws of his people. He is beloved by the people of his town.
And so, one day, Jesus came to the town of the rich young ruler. The ruler had a question for Jesus. "... what must I do to inherit eternal life?" the ruler said to Jesus (Luke 18:18).
Jesus answered the rich ruler. "You know the commandments," Jesus said. "You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother" (Luke 18:20).
If you had been there just then you would have seen a big smile break out all over the rich ruler's face. He was tickled to death. He'd done all this! He had kept all the commandments! "I have kept all these since my youth," he said to Jesus through his broad smile (Luke 18:21). This was a man who had just found out that he would be saved. His deeds made it so.
But Jesus wasn't finished with the rich young man. "Not so fast," Jesus seems to say. "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me" (Luke 18:22).
The smile immediately left the young man's face. He was very rich. There was just no way that he was going to give up all his wealth. Not even for his salvation. Jesus reflected upon his departure: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" (Luke 18:24).
Now there was a crowd observing all this. They were scandalized by Jesus' words and the ruler's departure. They knew this young man. They knew him to be an upright and honest man. They knew him to be a benefactor of the town. "If this man can't be saved," they said to Jesus, "then who can be saved?"
Jesus replied: "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God" (Luke 18:27). This is a wonderful, high-sounding answer to the question of the crowd. But what does it mean? What does it mean for you and for me? If a wonderfully righteous person like the young ruler can be turned away from salvation, what hope is there for us? None of us lives up to the standards of the rich young ruler. None of us has kept all the commandments. Is salvation a possibility for us at all?
"Who then can be saved?" Luke's answer: Zacchaeus can be saved! Sinners can be saved! "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God." "For the Son of Man came to seek out and save the lost" (Luke 19:10).
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Among The Weeds - Blooms
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Have you ever stopped to examine weeds? They serve as a reminder of judgment, a result of the curse on the ground after the fall of Adam. But if you look closely, you can see signs of mercy in that judgment. Some weeds have gorgeous flowers: tiny blue bells, ruffled purple blooms, and even magnificent displays of gold. In the same way—even in trials or discipline—if we look closely, we can see beautiful signs of God’s mercy.
17. A Little Silver
Illustration
Michael P. Green
One day a certain old, rich man of a miserable disposition visited a rabbi, who took the rich man by the hand and led him to a window. “Look out there,” he said. The rich man looked into the street, “What do you see?” asked the rabbi.
“I see men, women, and children,” answered the rich man.
Again the rabbi took him by the hand and this time led him to a mirror. “Now what do you see?”
“Now I see myself,” the rich man replied.
Then the rabbi said, “Behold, in the window there is glass, and in the mirror there is glass. But the glass of the mirror is covered with a little silver, and no sooner is the silver added than you cease to see others, but you see only yourself.”
18. The Freedom to Sing
Illustration
Gerry Pierse
The French have a story about a millionaire in his palace who spent his days counting his gold. Beside the palace was a poor cobbler who spent his days singing as he repaired people's shoes. The joyful singing irritated the rich man. One day he decided to give some gold coins to the cobbler. At first the cobbler was overjoyed, and he took the coins and hid them. But then he would be worried and go back to check if the coins were still there. Then he would be worried in case someone had seen him, and he would move the coins and hide them in another place. During all this, he ceased to sing. Then one day he realized that he had ceased to sing because of the gold coins. He took them back to the rich man and said, "take back your coins and give me back my songs."
19. Different Worlds
Illustration
Brett Blair
Some years ago before the death of Mother Theresa, a television special depicted the grim human conditions that were a part of her daily life. It showed all the horror of the slums of Calcutta and her love for these destitute people. The producer interviewed her as she made her rounds in that dreadful place. Throughout the program commercials interrupted the flow of the discussion. Here is the sequence of the topics and commercials: lepers (bikinis for sale); mass starvation (designer jeans); agonizing poverty (fur coats); abandoned babies (ice cream sundaes) the dying (diamond watches).
The irony was so apparent. Two different worlds were on display--the world of the poor and the world of the affluent. It seems that our very culture here in the United States, and any other place that has a great deal of commercialization to it, is teaching us to live as the Rich Man in the story of Lazarus. We are occasionally presented with the images of the poor man Lazarus at our gate but we are immediately reminded of the next car we ought to by and the next meal we should eat. We are slowly and methodically told it is O.K. to live our life of luxury while others live their life of poverty. But alas, it is not so! Heaven's reversal of fortune shall one day awaken us to the fact that we have separated ourselves from the agonies of others. That we did not care about others who suffered.
20. The Name of Dives
Illustration
Brett Blair
Dives is not a name. It is a Latin adjective which simply means rich. This is how the tradition evolved which gave the rich man the name of Dives. If wealth prevents us from getting into heaven, then Abraham wouldn't be the one meeting Lazarus because he was a very wealthy man. The rich man does not end up in torment because he is rich, but because of his indifferent and uncaring attitude toward poor Lazarus.
21. The Rich Man’s Reward
Illustration
There is an old story about a very wealthy man who died and went to heaven. An angel guided him on a tour of the celestial city. He came to a magnificent home. "Who lives there?" asked the wealthy man. "Oh," the angel answered, "on earth he was your gardener." The rich man got excited. If this was the way gardeners live, just think of the kind of mansion in which he would spend eternity. They came to an even more magnificent abode. "Whose is this?" asked the rich man almost overwhelmed. The angel answered, "She spent her life as a missionary." The rich man was really getting excited now. Finally they came to a tiny shack with no window and only a piece of cloth for a door. It was the most modest home the rich man had ever seen. "This is your home," said the angel. The wealthy man was flabbergasted. "I don't understand. The other homes were so beautiful. Why is my home so tiny?" The angel smiled sadly, "I'm sorry," he said, "We did all we could with what you sent us to work with."
22. BEGGAR
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Psalm 37:25 - "... yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread."
A beggar is a person who lives on the charity of others; there were (and are) professional beggars, who solicited alms publicly, and even went from door to door. They are still numerous in the East; they are usually "lame, maimed, or blind" (Luke 14:13). The commonest and most pathetic form of infirmity is blindness; some of these blind beggars are led by children and have regular places to station themselves.
The begging was sometimes only a simple statement of poverty. "I am poor," "I want a loaf of bread," or "give me the price of a loaf of bread." But occasionally they used the expressive gesture of bringing the forefinger across the teeth and holding it up as a proof that there was absolutely no trace of food in the mouth. It was Amos’ "cleanness of teeth" (Amos 4:6).
The beggars were typical of the Jewish life of Jesus’ time, particularly, and there were a great many of them. The New Testament speaks of several, from Lazarus, who lay covered with sores, wishing that he might be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, and the blind Bartimaeus whom St. Mark shows sitting by the wayside just outside Jericho, to the lame man found by Peter and John at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple.
Although there is no doubt that many of these beggars were professionals, still there were also many who were legitimately sick or crippled, or in some way unable to hold a job. It was in the role of one of these miserable souls that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the last judgment: "I was hungry, and you gave me food, thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you brought me home, naked, and you clothed me, sick and you cared for me" (Matthew 25:35-40).
Jerusalem, particularly at the time of the great pilgrimages, was thronged by all the beggars in the Holy Land; they knew very well that those who came to pray for God’s pardon would be in a charitable frame of mind. At other times, the beggars wandered along the roads, going to the markets and the fords of the rivers, and profiting too by the permission the Law gave them to eat ears of corn in the fields and grapes in the vineyards, providing they carried neither basket nor sickle, and to pick up windfalls and gather overlooked bunches.
Just as today, the daily life of Israel was punctuated by the sound of their entreaties. Some of them posed as sent from God; "I am your guest! I am God’s guest! God will direct you! God will recompense you! God will preserve your children! God will prolong your days!" So, today as then, beggars are often the street preachers of the East.
I confess to being somewhat at a loss as to how I might compare the ancient beggar with his modern counterpart. The obvious association is with the charitable organizations which solicit funds and other types of assistance for those less fortunate than ourselves. But I don’t wish to imply that begging, in the ancient sense, is involved here. Modern charity is highly organized, and regimented, and rightly so, for the sake of those who are on the receiving end. But it still involves a giving of that of which we are possessed, whether it be food, money, or clothing - or love. And, in that degree, it becomes comparable to the obligations that are imposed on all of us, not any one class or profession or occupation. We are all enjoined to care for our brothers, and this we might not disobey.
23. Christ, Incarnation of
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The story is told of Shah Abbis, a Persian monarch who loved his people very much. To know and understand them better, he would mingle with his subjects in various disguises. One day he went as a poor man to the public baths and in a tiny cellar sat beside the fireman who tended the furnace. When it was mealtime the monarch shared his coarse food and talked to his lonely subject as a friend. Again and again he visited and the man grew to love him. One day the Shah told him he was the monarch, expecting the man to ask some gift from him. But the fireman sat gazing at his ruler with love and wonder and at last spoke, “You left your palace and your glory to sit with me in this dark place, to eat of my coarse food, to care whether my heart is glad or sorry. On others you may bestow rich presents, but to me you have given yourself, and it only remains for me to pray that you never withdraw the gift of your friendship.”
This beautiful story reminds us that Christ, whose birth we celebrate at Christmas, left the glories of heaven in order to share himself with us. That gift of his love and friendship will never be withdrawn from us. He chose to be your friend and mine forever.
24. Master of My Fate; Captain of My Soul
Illustration
Yearsago this country witnessed the execution of Timothy McVeigh, the man responsible for the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. A USA Today poll taken in April showed that 81 percent of Americans wanted McVeigh to be executed -- and 28 percent of that support was from people who are normally against the death penalty. No matter where you stand on the issue of capital punishment, this particular execution has forced itself on our consciousness. One thing that particularly caught my attention was that in lieu of any verbal comment, McVeigh gave a handwritten statement to the warden, quoting a section of the poem "Invictus," which is Latin for "unconquered." That poem, by 19th-century British poet William Ernest Henley (1849-1903), reads in part "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." In case you haven't heard the poem, it goes like this:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circ*mstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
From what we've learned of McVeigh's attitudes and opinions, those lines probably come as close as any to a philosophy of life for him. Even to the point of ending the appeals process, McVeigh sought to be the master of his fate. But of course he's not. And in a letter written just a day before his death, he demonstrated how little he understood that. He wrote that if it turned out that there was an afterlife, he would "improvise, adapt and overcome." As if he or any of us will have the ability to affect our environment after arrival in the world to come! Once we are at the judgment seat of God, none of us is any longer master of our fate.
It's worth noting that when the poet Henley wrote those words, he was not thinking of setting his own standard of morality, as McVeigh appears to have done. Far from claiming the right to be judge, jury and executioner of others, Henley was vocalizing his attitude toward the hurts and setbacks of life. At the age of 12, he developed tubercular arthritis, and his left foot was amputated in his teens. He had other health problems later on, and actually wrote "Invictus" while once again in the hospital, too ill to work. He was, as his poem says, "bloody, but unbowed." For Henley, "Invictus" was an expression of courage in the face of life's difficulties, not a license to kill.
McVeigh sounds an awful lot like the attitude of the legion of demons. The demons knew, once they saw Jesus’ boat land near their home town, that their days were numbered. So, they start bartering with Jesus. What are you doing here? What do you want with us? Please, don’t torture us. (There’s a hypocritical request if I ever heard one. They had been torturing this poor man for years and now they are begging for mercy.) Finally, knowing that they would have to leave their host they asked to be sent into a heard of nearby pigs. When this happens the pigs become disoriented and throw themselves along with the demons over the cliff and into the sea where they drown. McVeigh perhaps felt he could master his own fate even the fate that befalls us in the afterlife. Perhaps he will find what he is looking for but the demons did not; they bartered, got what they wanted, and lost!
The fullsermon can be found on Sermons.com by doing a Scripture search for Luke 12, the sermon titled, "God, The Enemy."
25. The Collateral Damage of Our Attitudes
Illustration
Brett Blair
In those first few weeksafter 9/11, it wasdifficult to take in all the things happening, much less make some kind of sense of it all. Occasionally you read something in the paper or you heard something on TV which helpedyou put things in perspective. I remember by Thursday September 13th all of the sporting events that weekend had been cancelled. One of the NFL athletes was asked about playing on Sunday. He said, "Why? Who wants to play? I have a family and my heart just wouldn't be in it."
A TV journalist stopped a woman on the streets and asked about her business. She said, "I'm not interested in making money any more. My family and my relationships are the most important things in life."
The Late Show with David Letterman, as you may well know, is produced in the heart of New York City. It was Monday the 17th before the show was back on the air and Letterman said that the only reason he was back was due to the strength of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. In his opening monologue he praised the Mayor saying: "If you've been watching and you're confused, and depressed, and irritated, and angry, and full of grief and you don't know how to behave and you're not sure what to do, because we've never been through this before, all you had to do at any moment is watch the Mayor. Watch how this guy behaved. Watch how this guy conducted himself. Watch what this guy did. Listen to what this guy said. Rudolph Giuliani is the personification of courage. He's an amazing man and far better than we could have hoped for. To run the city in the midst of this obscene chaos and attack and also demonstrate human dignity... Who can do that? That's a pretty short list."
It's amazing how events like this can change our perspective. Giuliani was vilified by many, and has sense been vilified. But then he wasrespected by almost everyone. People appreciatedwhat he didfor the city. Events like this also tend to bring out the best in us. David Letterman, who mada living making fun of everyone, including himself, has showed a more human side for sometime afterwards.
The new Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Collateral Damage" was delayed in it's opening. It was due out less than one month after[Oct. 5th]. Ironically it was about terrorist of course. Target pulled violent video games off the shelf the day after. Wereally sawhow insensitive we were before the events of the 11th.
That is what happened to the rich man in Jesus' story. When he arrived in hell and looked across the chasm at poor Lazarus sitting comfortably beside Abraham, his perspective was changed. He suddenly understood how insensitive and selfish he had been. What does it take to open our eyes? To help us see the collateral damage of our attitudes.
26. Zacchaeus - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
We owe Luke a great debt. For in his Gospel alone is told a dramatic story that capsulizes for us what the mission of Jesus was all about, and in turn what the mission of the church is all about. The event happened while Jesus was passing through Jericho, the city of palms. Writes Luke: "And there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich." In one sentence we are told the story of a human life.
Here's the background. Nothing in first century Judea was quite so hated and despised as was the Roman tax. It not only reminded the Jews that they were a subjugated people, it also represented a theological affront. To the Jew there was only one King, and that was God, not Caesar. Paying tribute to an earthly non-Jewish monarch was something that the Hebrews had opposed throughout their long history.
But there was more. The dirty work of collecting the tax was done not by the Romans, but by collaborating Jews. Much of the money that they collected off the backs of their fellow countrymen stuck to their own fingers. We are told that Zacchaeus was a chief tax collector. That is the only time in the New Testament that that term is used. It meant that he was over an entire district. Zacchaeus may have been short in stature, but he had wealth and wealth means power, so, in a manner of speaking, people looked up to him. Zacchaeus was the little man with the big reputation. He was not just very well to do. According to Luke, he was a rich man.
Of course, one might take issue with Luke in that descriptive term rich. For in many ways Zacchaeus was as poor as any man in Jericho. For all of his money he was a lonely man, he was an empty man. In the world of the flesh he had everything; in the world of the spirit he had nothing. The people, of course, looked upon him with complete contempt. He was a dog. He was cut off from communion with the community of God. There is symbolism in his title chief tax collector. That is another way of saying that he was not only a sinner, but a chief among sinners. Therefore, he was prevented from seeing Jesus that day, not only by the press of the crowd, but also due to social and religious ostracism.
This is not only a story of Zacchaeus, but it is also the story of what it means to be a lost person. What do we means when we say that a person is lost? Well, we can perhaps oversimplify and say that their soul is lost, but it can be much more tragically real than that?
1. Jesus reaches out to the outcast and sinner
2. The most difficult aspect of our Christian faith
27. Observable Love
Illustration
Leslie B. Flynn
During the Italian occupation of Ethiopia in the days of Mussolini, Christian believers suffered considerable persecution. In his book, Fire on the Mountains, Raymond Davis tells of the love demonstrated by believers for each other during this period of affliction, which in turn made a major impression on unbelievers. For example, no provision was made to feed the prisoners in jail by the invading army. This was the responsibility of relatives and friends. Christians in the prisons had no problem, though. They were well cared for by friends and family. In fact, so much food was brought them by fellow believers and church groups that enough remained to feed the unbelieving prisoners also. This observable love, vibrant though nonverbal, brought many to seek the Lord. Such love was previously unheard of. As a result, the word spread far and wide. Non-believers sought out believers to learn more about the Christian faith. When prisoners who had come to know Christ while in jail were released, they went back home and attended the nearest church.
28. What Are You Doing?
Illustration
Edward F. Markquart
In 1905, we received aclassic interpretation of this parable in the person of Dr. Albert Schweitzer. The truth of the parable finally penetrated his heart and Dr. Schweitzer wrote the following words: "We British (and Americans) are the rich people. Out there in Africa lies wretched Lazarus. Just as the rich man sinned against Lazarus because of his lack of heart and compassion, so the rich man would not put himself in Lazarus' place. Nor did the rich man let his conscience tell him what to do. And so we English (and Americans) have sinned against the poorest of the world at our gates."
And what did Dr. Albert Schweitzer do? He gave up his life and went to Africa. But that was over 100 years ago. The question is for you and me. "What did Ido for Lazarus? What are you doing for Lazarus?" Are you and me merely brushing off the crumbs from our table?
29. Why Bother?
Illustration
Pete Richards was a lonely and bitter man. His life had started out in such a promising way. Despite his growing up in a poor family in New York City, Pete Richards was a shining star on the basketball court. God had given him a gift that Pete used to get a full scholarship to a big eastern university. While in college, Pete Richards not only made his team a winner, but he established himself as a fine student with a very promising career ahead of him in business.
And then came Viet Nam. Because Pete had been in the ROTC in college, he graduated with a Second Lieutenant's commission, and after just six months of additional training, Pete found himself in the jungles of Viet Nam responsible for a rifle company. One night while on patrol, Pete Richards' dreams were suddenly shattered by a land mine. Miraculously, he survived, but it meant the loss of both legs, and nearly 18 months in a veteran's hospital.
For Pete Richards, there would be no more basketball, no promising career on Wall Street, and as far as he could see, no more life worth living. He became withdrawn from even his family and friends, and it was clear that each day, the bitterness in his soul was taking his life.
Too proud to take the assistance offered to him by his family, Pete became one of the hundreds of faceless men on the streets of New York asking passersby for a handout. He had found a great spot just outside the steps leading into St. Thomas' Episcopal Church on Fifth Avenue. After all, he reasoned, those rich churchgoers owe me something for my time in Viet Nam.
It was on a day when Pete was feeling particularly sorry for himself, that a young man about Pete's age stopped by his wheelchair, and said, "Hi! Mind if I sit down by you for a while?" "It's a free country," said Pete, "suit yourself." The stranger introduced himself as Dan Ferris, and Pete was startled when he took out a thermos of coffee and some deli sandwiches, and offered them to the hapless man in the wheelchair. At first, Pete refused the kindness, but he was really hungry, and the food mellowed him so that he and Dan began to talk. Pete actually enjoyed their conversation about growing up in the City, their experiences in college, and the nightmare they shared in Viet Nam.
The next day, Dan was back with more sandwiches and coffee. Slowly, he began to gain Pete's confidence, and their meeting by the steps of the church became a daily ritual. One day, Dan told Pete about a friend of his who was starting a course to train people to use computers. He asked if Pete would be interested. At first, Pete's old bitterness and resentment put up a wall of resistance, but Dan's loving insistence finally won out. The next day, Dan came to Pete's single room, helped him get shaved and dressed, and they set off for the computer school.
Pete Richards turned out to be a computer genius, and today he lives a fruitful and productive life. No matter where he goes, Pete never tires of telling anyone who will listen about a man he met on Fifth Avenue whose love gave him back his life. "
30. The Love That Conquers the World
Illustration
Frederick Buechner
The love for equals is a human thing--of friend for friend, brother for brother. It is to love what is loving and lovely. The world smiles.
The love for the less fortunate is a beautiful thing--the love for those who suffer, for those who are poor, the sick, the failures, the unlovely. This is compassion, and it touches the heart of the world.
The love for the more fortunate is a rare thing--to love those who succeed where we fail, to rejoice without envy with those who rejoice, the love of the poor for the rich, of the black man for the white man. The world is always bewildered by its saints.
And then there is the love for the enemy--love for the one who does not love you but mocks, threatens, and inflicts pain. The tortured's love for the torturer. This is God's love. It conquers the world.
31. Trash Into Treasure
Illustration
James Merritt
We have all heard of the Italian violin maker, Stradivarius. His violins are now the most prized violins ever made because of the rich and resonating sound they produce. The unique sound of a Stradivarius violin cannot be duplicated. Now what may surprise you is these precious instruments were not made from treasured pieces of wood; they were carved from discarded lumber. Stradivarius was very poor, and could not afford fine materials like his contemporaries. So he got most of his wood from the dirty harbors where he lived. He would take those waterlogged pieces of wood to his shop and clean them up, dry them out, and from those trashed pieces of lumber he would create instruments of rare beauty.
It has since been discovered that while that wood floated in those dirty harbors, microbes went into the wood and ate out the center of those cells. This left just a fibrous infrastructure of the wood that created resonating chambers for the music. From wood that nobody wanted, Stradivarius produced violins that now everybody wants. Just as this poor violin maker transformed trash into treasure, only God can transform a sinner into a saint. Only God can take us from being worthless to make us worthy of heaven itself.
You see, God can do what even the farmer in the parable could not do. The farmer cannot turn a weed into wheat, but God can turn a sinner into a saint.
32. How Can God Know All About Us?
Illustration
Unknown
A man named Gerhard Dirks, the "father of the modern computer," was one who had to face up to life's most important question. During the years of the Second World War he made many inventions that led to the development of the first computers. He and his family escaped from Hitler's Germany and later Russian occupation to the west. He was a brilliant man, reported to have an IQ of 208. He had over 140 patents with IBM and even attempted theoretically to reconstruct the human brain. But he became completely bewildered and shaken when confronted with the complexity and utter impossibility of such a reconstruction. He didn't know what to do or where to run. He had to face a choice: Either the human brain came about by a fantastic chance or by intelligent planning. Dirks re-established contact with an old friend and found out this friend had become a Christian. He saw the change in this man from being selfish and impatient to being patient and at peace. But, Dirks clung to his atheism because he could not understand how God can know all about us, every person in the entire world. He couldn't understand where God could possibly store all the information about every person that ever lived.
Dirks went with his friend to a discussion group where a man talked about God. Someone asked "What do you say to someone who thinks they are not a sinner?" The leader of the meeting told the man to take four pieces of paper and number them 1 to 4 and write a list of things on each piece of paper. On page 1, he said: write down every time you can remember when you said "yes" and meant "no" or said "no" and meant "yes." Then write down every time you can remember when you told an outright lie. Write down every time you gave someone a shady answer, every time you made a promise and broke it and every time you made a promise and never intended to keep it.
On page 2 write what it is that you hide from everybody. You don't have to show this to anyone, but to yourself. And, write down something that, if anyone found out about it, something inside you would wither.
On page 3 he said make a list of friends to whom you have done something that you would not want them to do to you. Never mind if they did something to provoke you, just put down your part.
On page 4 write the names of the people for whom you have done something good, and done it without hope of any compensation or reward of any kind. He then said "I think that any man who does that honestly will see that he is a sinner and that he is desperately in the need of salvation. He will know that the sin and the wrong he has written down is only the tip of an iceberg."
Dirks went home and did it, and the imbalance between paper 4 and papers 1, 2, and 3 were self-evident. He had to admit he was asinner. And, suddenly it hit him. He knew where God stored data. He got his answer without even looking for it. God stored the information about Dirks IN DIRKS. Everything he had ever thought, seen, heard, said, done - everything was there in his own mind. He was his own "file." Every human being was his own "file." Now, he lost all his excuses for not believing in the Savior. People CAN change, because he saw the real changes in his friend. And, there is information for a final judgment - because every person carries his own data. He realized that he did not like himself and the way he lived. Just like when a computer has errors he needed to be "debugged." He fell onto his knees and prayed "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me and wash me in your blood."
In a few minutes he stopped crying. He knew that something had happened. A wall had come down, the wall that had stood between him and his Creator. He hadn't known the wall was there, until it came down. It was the wall that Christ had demolished. Now, for the first time in his life, he knew what it meant to have fellowship with his Heavenly Father. Then he thought, it wasn't a wall, it was more like a sphere made of stone - a sphere that formed a prison. It had kept him in, and God out. He was now free of that prison!
33. The Idiot
Illustration
King Duncan
In Dostoevsky's novelThe Idiot the central character is Prince Myshkin, who does not fit in to the society around him. His peers are striving for status and power. They judge each other on the basis of money or appearance or family connections. In their world, there is no real friendship or intimacy.
People use each other to meet their own needs. And into this world walks Prince Myshkin. He just doesn't get it. He treats everyone, whether poor or rich, with respect and kindness. He has no hidden agenda, no need to dominate others. He is pure in thought, word, and deed. This makes him a fool in other's eyes. At the same time, all these empty, cynical, status-seeking people are strangely drawn to him. He attracts others, not through money or power, but through the strength of his character.
The Idiot. If that is what an idiot is, I wish that we could all be idiots for Christ.
34. Showing Faith
Illustration
James W. Robinson
A woman showed symptoms of a serious internal disorder. She consulted her family doctor, who referred her to a specialist. The specialist, a hematologist, hinted ominously that she had a dangerous condition. Her condition was so delicate that an ordinary cough, or a sneeze, might trigger irreversible and fatal internal bleeding. Surgery was advised. The woman entered the hospital for a high-risk operation.
Prior to the operation, the surgeon began to read the customary document of consent for surgery. The woman interrupted him abruptly. "Don't bother to read it, Doctor," she said. "Just show me where to sign."
The woman was a believer. She knew the meaning of faith. She applied it to her situation. She knew that the hospital where she was confined was respected nationwide for its success in treating her type of ailment. She was impressed by testimonies to the skills of the entire staff, from patients recuperating in her room. All that she observed and heard gave substance to her hope for recovery. As she awaited the unsettling unseen and unknown - few of life's experiences exceed the bleak uncertainty of a major operation - she had all the evidence she needed to convince her that she could entrust her very life to the medical and surgical teams. She entered the operating room calmly, and emerged cured.
Was it not thus with Bartimaeus? He had never met Jesus. But the stories that circulated so wildly and widely spoke of a person with the compassion and skills of a great physician. He was not known to have turned anyone away. Rich and poor were alike to him, it was said. He had restored hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, health to lepers and the lame, and - to Bartimaeus - most wonderful of all, sight to the blind. Some of Bartimaeus' most generous givers claimed to have been cured by the man. It all had the ring of truth. Would Bartimaeus have made more than a feeble effort to reach the Master if he had not been certain that his sources of information were trustworthy? They added substance to his hope for healing, and offered all the evidence he needed to convince him that it was within the power of Jesus to give him his sight.
35. Christ's Heirs
Illustration
Staff
Watchman Nee tells about a new convert who came in deep distress to see him. "No matter how much I pray, no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot seem to be faithful to my Lord. I think I'm losing my salvation." Nee said, "Do you see this dog here? He is my dog. He is house-trained; he never makes a mess; he is obedient; he is a pure delight to me. Out in the kitchen I have a son, a baby son. He makes a mess, he throws his food around, he fouls his clothes, he is a total mess. But who is going to inherit my kingdom? Not my dog; my son is my heir. You are Jesus Christ's heir, because it is for you that He died." We are Christ's heirs, not through our perfection but by means of His grace.
36. Faithful Fruit
Illustration
Charles Ryrie
Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation. Having said that, some caveats are in order.
ONE, this does not mean that a believer will always be fruitful. Certainly we can admit that if there can be hours and days when a believer can be unfruitful, then why may there not also be months and even years when he can be in that same condition? Paul exhorted believers to engage in good works so they would not be unfruitful (Titus 3:14). Peter also exhorted believers to add the qualities of Christian character to their faith lest they be unfruitful (2 Peter 1:8). Obviously, both of those passages indicate that a true believer might be unfruitful. And the simple fact that both Paul and Peter exhort believers to be fruitful shows that believers are not always fruitful.
TWO, this does not mean that a certain person's fruit will necessarily be outwardly evident. Even if I know the person and have some regular contact with him, I still may not see his fruit. Indeed, I might even have legitimate grounds for wondering if he is a believer because I have not seen fruit. His fruit may be very private or erratic, but the fact that I do not see it does not mean it is not there.
THREE, my understanding of what fruit is and therefore what I expect others to bear may be faulty and/or incomplete. It is all too easy to have a mental list of spiritual fruits and to conclude if someone does not produce what is on my list that he or she is not a believer. But the reality is that most lists that we humans devise are too short, too selective, too prejudiced, and often extra-biblical. God likely has a much more accurate and longer list than most of us do. Nevertheless, every Christian will bear fruit; otherwise he or she is not a true believer. In speaking about the Judgment Seat of Christ, Paul says unequivocally that every believer will have praise come to him from God (1 Corinthians 4:5).
37. Who Do You Say He Is?
Illustration
Herb Miller
If I told you to pull out a piece of paper and write on it who you say Jesus is what would you write? We all have some answer; we all have some images of Jesus. Some of them are the images we learned as children in Sunday school which have proved troubling and we don't' have anything to replace them with. Sometimes we dismiss Jesus on the basis of what we knew about Jesus at age six. Some of us have never examined the evidence for ourselves.
One of my main goals in preaching is to gain a fresh hearing for Jesus, especially among those who believe they already understand him. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably don't. Because what happens sometimes is that presumed familiarity has led to unfamiliarity. Jesus is sometimes obstructed by clouds of well-intentioned misinformation.
But ultimately, rather than give you my answer to the question I'd rather challenge you to answer the question for yourself because that's the only answer that matters. Is he Messiah? If that's what you think, what does that mean? Jesus clearly didn't' fit into what a Messiah was expected to be. Messiahs were supposed to have power, were supposed to take charge, were supposed to set things right and free the Jews from political expression. But Jesus refused to stiff arm anybody. He refused to dominate or to take up arms.
Is he Savior? OK. But what is he saving us from and what is he saving us to? Some people clearly had no interest in being saved. When Jesus said the poor are precious and the rich are in big trouble, only those on one side of that equation found it intriguing.
Is he Teacher? Surely, but is that all?
Who do you say he is? Messiah, Savior, Lord, shaman, teacher, friend, prophet, prince of peace?
Now, as you try and answer that question, don't be too alarmed if you cant' nail it down. Even those of us who wrestle with the question regularly find it difficult, because Jesus is sometimes downright incomprehensible; he is often enigmatic, ambiguous. From the very beginning, who Jesus was, what he was about, was far from self-evident. There were people who stood face-to-face with Jesus and said, "This is God incarnate." There appear to be many more who said, "This man is nuts." Although I think that for most of us, the biggest issue isn't that we've listened to Jesus and found him incomprehensible; it's that we've listened to him and found him too damned difficult.
38. The Church Is Like a Hospital
Illustration
Richard Patt
There was a minister who had a favorite slogan that he often repeated in his sermons. He said, "The church is not like a country club; it's more like a hospital." That's what Jesus was saying here when he gave us the direction, "... do not invite your friends ... or your rich neighbors ... invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind...." You and I are not in the church to impress one another or to win power struggles; we are here to minister to one another in our weaknesses. We are here to be hospitable.
39. Twain's Christmas Wish
Illustration
Staff
Mark Twain was once asked to record a Christmas message on an early gramophone. This is what he said, "It is my heart-warm and world-embracing Christmas hope and aspiration that all of us, the high, the low, the rich, the poor, and admired, the despised, the loved, the hated, the civilized, the savage every man and woman of us all throughout the whole earth may eventually be gathered in a heaven of everlasting rest and peace and bliss, except the inventor of the telephone."
40. Servants of the Most High
Illustration
Brett Blair
In Letters to Scattered Pilgrims, by Elizabeth O'Conner, envisions that Christians can transform the world. Listen to her vision: "If we are each obedient to our visions the cities would have green spaces, birds in their trees, and architecture to quicken the awareness of the divine life throbbing in the whole of the world. And the towns? the towns would have galleries to hold the works of their artists; theaters for the performing arts would spring up in their squares; scientists and poets would confer with each other; students would gather for debate and reflection, children would want to continue in life, and church congregations everywhere would be struggling 'to make serious use of the wings the creator had given.' Everyone would know what it meant to be the servant of the Most High."
Okay. Now, when I hear words like this,I want to respond with, "I am the Walrus,goo goo g'joob." Beatles fans will understand.
This kind of Utopian Christianity is only possible in a perfect world. It is even said that John Lennon later disavowed his secular version of this starry eyed optimism, his song Imagine. Even as the best of Christians, we struggle with sin: revenge, hatred, lying, sexual desires. Paul understood the struggle. What he wanted to do, he did not do. What he did not want to do, he did. The great Apostle lived with the same tensions as you and me.
Now I'm going to say something controversial. Here it is: When we become Christians we do not lose our sinful nature. That's what I hear Paul saying in Romans 7. So, where do we find the freedom our hearts so desperately need?Paul pivots in chapter 8 and answers his own dilemma: There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,because through Christ Jesus I have been freed from the law of sin and death.
You hear that? Forgiveness. That's the victory. And, that's our freedom.
41. The Weaver
Illustration
It had started as one play, produced by the high school students for a parish summer gathering. But the talents of that particular group were gaining attention - even outside the congregation. John had watched his spouse, the congregation's pastor, marvel at the imagination of the writers.
"You must come and see this production Sunday evening, John," said Karenza. And so he did.
The play was set in a single room. It was Pilate's headquarters where he had addressed Jesus about his kingly aspirations. The students had based the play primarily on the exchange of Jesus and Pilate but another subplot was added and it kept them all keenly attentive.
In a cottage near the soldiers' quarters sat a young soldier's widow. Only two weeks before her husband had died in a raid on one of the province's outlying areas. There had been a revolt against the soldiers in a Jewish village, her husband had fallen, striking his head against a well and had died.
The young woman wandered aimlessly around the small dwelling. When she reached the corner where her loom stood, she suddenly fell to the floor sobbing. She had woven a rich purple cloak for her husband. On his return she had planned to present it to him. She had anticipated his comments. He was very modest and gentle considering the fact that he had to do his stint for the Roman army. She knew he would demur at wearing such a rich-looking robe.
"Julia! This is too fine a cloak for me! This is what the wealthy and fine folks wear!"
And it was true. She had been given the materials by her aunt in Rome, a wealthy matron. Julia had stood over the baskets of fine wool reverentially. She knew what a beautiful piece could be fashioned from the gift. It would be a robe fit for a king and when she finished it she thought so herself.
As she listlessly dried her tears, she heard a knock on the door. It was her husband's friend, a fellow soldier.
"Julia!" he cried painfully, "I need your help! The soldiers are looking for a robe for some scoundrel in the prison. He thinks he's a king and so they thought they'd play along. We'll pay you for the robe you were working on. Please, help me. I'm in a fix. I'll get in trouble if I don't bring something back."
Julia looked at him listlessly. In a fit of despair she went to the loom and picked up the neatly folded robe and thrust it at him. "Take it. I have no use for it."
He smiled at her gratefully and ran out.
Early that afternoon as she stood on a crowded roadside, she found herself caught up in a mob urging crucifixion on the poor soul who bore the weight of a cross. She was stunned by the look he cast at her, one of compassion and knowledge and simultaneously by a woman following him. The woman was sobbing and in her arms she clutched the distinctive purple robe Julia had woven.
Julia knew that she must follow the woman and find out what this tumult was all about.
42. Trusting in the Father’s Storehouse
Illustration
King Duncan
In George S. Clason's, The Richest Man in Babylon,he teaches an important principle. It's a principle you're familiar with:the person wanting to be rich should give away ten percent of everything he earns. Why? According to Clason there are some deep subconscious, psychological principles.
The first is that you should put back what you take out. The second is that the act of giving ten percent creates value for yourself and others. But I was drawn to his third reason for giving ten percent away. When we do that, according to Clason, it says to the world and to our own subconscious mind that there is more than enough, that we expect life to keep providing what we need.
This poor widow had never read The Richest Man in Babylon, but she must have trusted that there was more than enough in the Father's storehouse and that he would provide. That kind of trust, that kind of confidence, that kind of hope is pleasing to God.
43. Four Steps to Your Dream
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
Years ago a young black child was growing up in Cleveland, in a home which he later described as "materially poor but spiritually rich."
One day a famous athlete, Charlie Paddock, came to his school to speak to the students. At the time Paddock was considered "the fastest human being alive." He told the children, "Listen! What do you want to be? You name it and then believe that God will help you be it." That little boy decided that he too wanted to be the fastest human being on earth.
The boy went to his track coach and told him of his new dream. His coach told him, "It's great to have a dream, but to attain your dream you must build a ladder to it. Here is the ladder to your dreams. The first rung is determination! And the second rung is dedication! The third rung is discipline! And the fourth rung is attitude!"
The result of all that motivation is that he went on to win four gold medals in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He won the 100 meter dash and broke the Olympic and world records for the 200 meter. His broad jump record lasted for twenty-four years. His name? Jesse Owens.
44. Eternally Interceding
Illustration
Larry Powell
The Hebrew peopleknew that Moses was on Mount Sinai, but it seemed to them that he had been gone much longer than necessary. All manner of mummerings arose within the ranks. Had he deserted them? Had something happened to him? Finally, it was decided that they would raise up Aaron as their new leader. Moreover, an idol fashioned in the form of a golden bull was set in their midst as the new object of worship. Unexpectedly, Moses returned. The scene which followed included at least three emphases:
1. Pronouncement. God utters a blistering assessment of the Hebrew people: "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people" (32:9). Then follows an expression of his intention; "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them" (32:10). As the Revelator was to put it centuries later, Israel had "forgotten its first love." Even as Moses was on the mountain top receiving the Ten Commandments, the people were fawning around the golden idol which had been fashioned from their own jewelry. It had been remarked that the people were just out of slavery ... they were tired of waiting on Moses to return to them ... they wanted to celebrate somehow and thank somebody. Not yet understanding the character of Moses’ God, they manufactured their own god to enable them to focus their celebration upon something. I believe the observation is correct inasmuch as we see latter-day versions of similar behavior, i.e., persons who want to celebrate life but are unable to understand the God of Christianity take unto themselves golden calves in some form or another. There are different causes of a stiff neck. Some are caused by sleeping in a draft, some are congenital, others due to injury or disease, and still others by arrogance and stubbornness. It is the latter malady to which God is referring in 32:9, the neck so stiff that it cannot bow to God. At the time of God’s pronouncement to Moses, the Hebrew people were in fact, in the words of Jonathan Edwards, "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
2. Intercession. Moses did not attempt to excuse his people, but instead undertook to intercede for them. He went to God in their behalf. I remember the story of the frail little country boy whose parents were so poor that they could not feed their family properly. The little boy , always undernourished, was sluggish and scarcely felt up to completing his assignments at school. One day the teacher announced the assignment and warned that anyone not completing it would be punished. Sure enough, the pale little youth failed to turn his work in when it was due. The teacher called him forward to the desk and told him to bend over. His hollow eyes looked helplessly at her as his bony body braced itself for a whipping. As he bent over, the bones in his back made little ridges in his shirt and his baggy pants were evidence of skinny legs and a tiny waist. The teacher raised the paddle. Suddenly, a little boy raised his hand and said, "Teacher, can I take his whipping for him?" That is a secular case of intercession. A theological case is "and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," and as the letter to the Hebrews suggests, Christ is "eternally interceding in our behalf."
3. Mercy. Certainly God was angry with the Hebrew people, just as he is vexed and saddened by those of us who become so stiff-necked that we cannot bow in an attitude of gratefulness for his leadership in our lives and the grace which always goes before us. It is often remarked, "When I stand before God in the judgment, I won’t ask for justice, I will ask for mercy." To be sure, none of us could survive the justice, but because of God’s promise to Moses, and the intercession of Christ, we do believe that there is hope for the sinner because a part of God’s character is mercy.
45. The Global Effect of a Galilean Peasant
Illustration
Larry R. Kalajainen
If history did not tell the story, who would believe that, nearly 2,000 years after an obscure Galilean peasant gained some local notoriety as a wandering preacher and healer, and was executed by the Romans, there would not be a single nation in the world where this obscure peasant was not worshipped and acclaimed as a king, a king whose kingdom shall never end, and who by his power holds the universe together? Fantastic, isn't it! Where in this world can one go and not discover somewhere a group of people who confess Jesus as Lord and King? In countries rich and poor, large and small, with repressive or democratic governments, the church which Christ has gathered into one body, and of which he is the head, is present and growing.
In the highlands of the interior of the East Malaysian state of Sarawak on the heavily-forested island of Borneo, there is a small village called Barrio. It is only accessible by small planes capable of landing on the tiny mountain-ringed runway, or by a long journey by canoes up jungle rivers and trekking on foot. And yet, every person in that village confesses the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In southern Zaire (officially emocratic Republic of the Congo), where political turmoil and corrupt government has many people on the brink of starvation, there are small groups of Christians who gather in rural mud-brick churches, sometimes without even a roof, and there each Sunday, they sing the praises of a king whose name is Jesus. Through the long years of repression in the Soviet Union and its satellites, and in China where for so many years public worship was forbidden, we now discover in this era when the walls of repression are falling that the church was not only alive but growing, and is now stronger than it ever was in those lands.
Many people in those lands refused to confess Mao Tse-Tung or Stalin or Brezhnev as king, preferring to confess Jesus as king instead, sometimes at great personal cost.
Somehow, that historical development -- the universal reign of One who died as a subversive criminal at the town dump of Jerusalem nearly 2,000 years ago -- must be explained.
46. God's Banquet Feast
Illustration
Alex Gondola
Martin Copenhaver, Pastor of the Wellesley Congregational Church, offers a vision of what God's Banquet Feast might be like: When God is throwing a party, you never know who will be there or whom you will sit next to. The financier will be seated next to the panhandler he always passed on his way to work. The store owner will be next to the person he just fired, and the doctor will be put next to the woman who just sued him for malpractice. Rush Limbaugh may be beside Barack Obama. A prostitute will sit next to the Pope.
All the "right" people will be there; that is everyone who responds to God's invitation ... and seated next to the host (Jesus) in the places of honor are not the dignitaries, the celebrities, the distinguished people of position and prominence, but rather the poor, the hurting, the outcast people who have distinguished themselves only by their need." (Library of Distinctive Sermons, vol. 2, Multnomah Press, p. 48)
I might add to Copenhaver's vision that at that Banquet Feast, everyone will get along famously. And that at that Banquet Feast, you and I may well find ourselves seated next to, and engaging in conversation with, people we presently can't stand (or who can't stand us). But the old anger, hurt, and grudges will be gone, and reconciliation will come. At God's Table, the barriers that keep people apart rich/poor, upperclass/lowerclass, black/white, Republican/Democrat, gay/straight, friend/foe, the dividing walls of hostility will come smashing down. The crash will be greater than the fall of the Berlin Wall. God's Banquet Feast will be the most remarkable party ever thrown!
47. What's Your Style of Evangelism?
Illustration
Brett Blair
A true heart of compassion will let people know of God's love and that God has provided a way to experience truelife, an abundant life.But How? Do we all have to share the same way? No, the unbelieving world is made up of a variety of people: young, old, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, urban, rural, with different race, personalities, values, politics, and religious backgrounds. It's going to take more than one style of evangelism to reach such a diverse population!
So what is your style?
Confrontational? Repent and be baptized, save yourselves from this corrupt generation.(Acts 2)
Intellectual? Paul debated with the philosophers on Mars Hill to convince them. (Acts 17)
Testimonial? One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!(John 9)
Relational? Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you. (Mark 5)
Invitational? The Samaritan woman at the well begged the people of the city to come and hear Jesus for themselves. (John 4)
Serving? Dorcas impacted her city by doing deeds of kindness. (Acts 9)
Don't ever think you're a second class Christian because you don't proclaim Christ like Peter or Paul. Discover your own method. Then get out of your chair and use it, for the Glory of God. Live by faith, not fear!!!
48. Better Than Revenge
Illustration
When we are wronged in some way, our natural inclination is to fight back, to get even. Needless to say, this reaction, though thoroughly human, is almost always in error. "Forgiveness," said Epictetus, "is better than revenge, for forgiveness is the sign of a gentle nature, but revenge is the sign of a savage nature."
A dramatic example is the experience of a Hungarian refugee. To protect his privacy we'll call him Joseph Kudar. Kudar was a successful young lawyer in Hungary before the uprisings in that country in 1956. A strong believer in freedom for his country, he fought Soviet tanks in the streets of Budapest with his friends. When the uprising failed, he was forced to flee the country.
When Kudar arrived in the U.S. he had no money, no job, no friends. He was, however, well educated; he spoke and wrote several languages, including English. For several months he tried to get a job in a law office, but because of his lack of familiarity with American law, he received only polite refusals.
Finally, it occurred to him that with his knowledge of language he might be able to get a job with an import-export company. He selected one such company and wrote a letter to the owner. Two weeks later he received an answer, but was hardly prepared for the vindictiveness of the man's reply. Among other things, it said that even if they did need someone, they wouldn't hire him because he couldn't even write good English. Crushed, Kudar's hurt quickly turned to anger. What right did this rude, arrogant man have to tell him he couldn't write the language! The man was obviously crude and uneducated, his letter was chock-full of grammatical errors!
Kudar sat down and, in the white heat of anger, wrote a scathing reply, calculated to rip the man to shreds. When he'd finished, however, as he was reading it over, his anger began to drain away. Then he remembered the biblical admonition, "A soft answer turneth away wrath." No, he wouldn't mail the letter. Maybe the man was right. English was not his native tongue. Maybe he did need further study in it. Possibly this man had done him a favor by making him realize he did need to work harder on perfecting his English.
Kudar tore up the letter and wrote another. This time he apologized for the previous letter, explained his situation, and thanked the man for pointing out his need for further study. Two days later he received a phone call inviting him to New York for an interview. A week later he went to work for them as a correspondent. Later, Joseph Kudar became vice president and executive officer of the company, destined to succeed the man he had hated and sought revenge against for a fleeting moment and then resisted.
49. Missing the Christ Child
Illustration
King Duncan
Frank S. Mead once wrote a story titled, "The V.I.P." In his story the small town of Mayfair is excited over the anticipated arrival of a rich and important stranger, Henry Bascom, who is coming to spend Christmas in their town. The whole town turns out to meet him at the airport, but he's nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, a quiet man slips by the people at the airport and heads into town.
This quiet man does not appear to be a man of means. He is ignored and mistreated by the insensitive people of Mayfair. They are all caught up in a Christmas frenzy of materialism and shallow pageantry. They don't have time to help this stranger in their midst. Finally, a poor, old gentleman invites the stranger home for a meager dinner with his family.
After the dinner, the stranger returns to the airport, where two men are taking down the sign welcoming Henry Bascom. One man remarks to the other, "I can't believe we missed him. He must be in town somewhere, but we missed him." And the stranger, unnoticed by the two men, climbs onto a plane and leaves behind the town of Mayfair.
That could happen in our town, couldn't it? That could happen in our church. That could happen to our celebration of Christmas. We could get so wrapped up in a frenzy of materialism and shallow pageantry, that we could miss the Christ child altogether.
That is why on this Sunday before Christmas, we need to go right to the heart of the Christmas story. When we do we are struck by the utter simplicity of the Christmas message.
50. The Negotiating Nun
Illustration
Staff
The Little Sisters of the Poor were going from door to door in a French city, soliciting alms for old people. One nun called at the house of a rich free-thinker who said he would give 1000 francs if she would have a glass of champagne with him. It was an embarrassing situation for the nun, and she hesitated. But the hesitation was short lived, after all, 1000 francs meant many loaves of bread. A servant brought the bottle and poured, and the brave little nun emptied the glass. And then, the nun revealed that their was a shrewd lady behind that habit. She said, "And now, sir, another glass, please, at the same price." She walked out with 2000 francs for the poor.
Showing
1
to
50
of
195
results
- Trump talks World War III, plans for 'largest deportation' during Fox News town hall
- Suspected shooter in custody after multiple casualties reported at Apalachee High School
- ‘Madman’ shoots up home of Pastor Greg Locke with one of his children inside
- New Mexico man charged with attempting to ram car into pro-life activist
- Coach Joe Kennedy fears for religious liberty, says God uses 'least likely' people
- Pastor Ed Young calls people who say megachurches are 'too big' hypocrites
- Is tech fueling sexual exploitation in America? What you need to know about this dire problem
- Trump discusses inevitability of death, says he wants religious revival in US
- 'God shielded him': 49ers receiver's mom thanks the Lord after son miraculously survives shooting
- 'White Bird' film expands 'Wonder' universe with tale of redemption: 'Our good deeds have ripple effects'
- How to Find Common Ground When You Disagree About the Common Good
- Evangelical Broadcasters Sue Over IRS Ban on Political Endorsem*nts
- Being a Church of Good Repute
- Triumphalism After Dobbs Was a Mistake
- Deep in the Heart of Megachurch Country, Dallas Mourns a Summer of Pastor Scandals
- Christian Formation for the ‘Toolbelt Generation’
- 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
- Pope hails Indonesia tunnel linking mosque, cathedral as symbol of coexistence
- Students in Bangladesh forced out the country’s leader a month ago. Where do things stand now?
- A controversial new show caused so much outrage, Netflix is adding disclaimers
- This Changes Everything About The Waco Seige
- Subjectivity in Halacha
- Matt Walsh: "Jesus did not abide by the tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion"
- Ben Platt marries Noah Galvin in New York celebration
- 'They don’t see it coming': Christian nationalists’ 'Trojan horse' election plot exposed
- India: Violent protests erupt in Asifabad as tribals demand death penalty for accused
- Netflix viewers have major theory about new Kaos series after realising how you pronounce it
- The Christian Nationalism We Need
- How Christians Can Counter Christian Nationalism
- Desiring the Right Kind of Knowledge in the Right Way
- Yale Divinity Students Forced to Read from Witch's 'Spell'
- Hearing Homilies
- Pope, in Muslim-Majority Indonesia, Warns Against Extremism
- 'Shocking' Abuse By Members of Religious Orders
- Can Public Schools Ask Students About Religion?
- You Need to Abandon God to Find God
- JD Vance's Catholicism Helped Shape His Views. So Did This Group
