Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

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

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

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

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

Of the 206 bones that compose the adult skeletal structure, the Bible mentions only a few: rib (Gen. 1:2122), hip (Gen. 32:25), skull (Judg. 9:53), jaw (Isa. 30:28), and legs (John 19:31–33). Nevertheless, while bones could be isolated, anatomical description tended more toward a holistic sense so that bones could refer to physical and psychological collapse in laments (Jer. 23:9) or to the entire person as a corpse (Gen. 50:25; 1Sam. 31:13).

Overwhelmingly, however, anatomical “units” are used metaphorically for human emotions or attitudes: shame becomes “decay in [the] bones” (Prov. 12:4), fear makes “bones shake” (Job 4:14), and a sad spirit “dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22). The phrase “bone of my bones” is an idiom, a kinship formula used to describe unity and close relatives (Gen. 2:23; cf. 2Sam. 5:1).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:56) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Cleanness does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (various discharges; e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Ceremonial cleansing is not just a topic in the OT; it appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

Love for those who suffer. The OT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward those who, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. In Exod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they have rebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for their deliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them of his sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15).

The NT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowds who “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick and feeding them miraculously (14:1421; cf. 15:32). The same connection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscores this attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is “full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depicts God as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution and trial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with broken sinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps. 145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for his people. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise, and even unrighteous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deliverance provides relief or escape from a detrimental situation or the prospect of adverse circ*mstances. Deliverance may come from God or humans and may be from physical temporal distress or spiritual in nature.

The principal example of deliverance in the OT is the exodus, God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The NT continues the exodus theme in that Jesus’ death and resurrection, the foundation for salvation, coincide with the celebration of Passover. This constitutes deliverance in that all humanity is in slavery to the power of sin and subject to the penalty of death. Jesus’ death and resurrection provide the possibility of deliverance, usually called “salvation,” from the power of sin and death (1Cor. 15:5157; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; 1Thess. 1:10).

Throughout the Bible, God provides deliverers and is a deliverer (Judg. 3:15; 2Sam. 22:2; 2Kings 13:5; Ps. 40:17). The NT prefers the term “Savior,” applying it to God the Father and to Jesus Christ.

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.

Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).

It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).

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

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew word translated “hyssop” occurs ten times in the OT, five of them in Lev. 14. Although there is some question regarding the identity of the plant, it clearly is small, in contrast to the cedar of Lebanon (1Kings 4:33). When branches of hyssop are bundled together, the leaf structure holds liquids. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintels and doorposts of the Israelite houses (Exod. 12:22). Its use in conjunction both with sprinkling blood on persons and houses affected by infectious skin diseases and mildew (Lev. 14) and with burning the red heifer (Num. 19:16) suggests that its aromatic properties were also significant in countering the stench of blood and burning flesh. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the purification water from the heifer on objects and individuals that had come in contact with a corpse (Num. 19:18). The impact of these ceremonial purification rites gave hyssop symbolic significance; it represented cleansing from sin (Ps. 51:7) and humility.

The English word “hyssop” comes from the Greek word hyssōpos, itself of Semitic origin. At the crucifixion, in response to Jesus’ cry “I thirst,” a sponge soaked in vinegar was lifted on a branch of hyssop to Jesus (John 19:29). If the plant is of the small herb variety, lifting the sponge on a branch of hyssop seems unlikely. Some suggest that the Greek really is a similar word that means “javelin” (hyssos). Others maintain that John, who is the only evangelist to mention the hyssop, is more interested in the symbolic aspects of hyssop and the connection to Passover with the death of Jesus, the Passover Lamb. The combination of purity and humility may be why John included it in the crucifixion scene. The author of Hebrews enhanced the description of the covenant ratification ceremony (Exod. 24:1–8) by including the ritual elements of scarlet wool and hyssop from Num. 19 and Lev. 14 along with water and the blood of sacrificial animals (Heb. 9:19).

Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

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

During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

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

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

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:115; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

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).

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).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1 17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John 2:2).

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation.

Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this.

Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 57), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).

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

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

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

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

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

(1)The first king of Israel (1Sam. 9:12Sam. 1:27; 1Chron. 9:35–10:14). Out of fear of their enemy the Philistines as well as displeasure over Samuel’s wicked sons, the people of Israel asked Samuel for a king like all the other nations had (1Sam. 8). Though God and Samuel both expressed displeasure with the people’s request, God directed Samuel to anoint Saul as king. Saul’s initial reluctance to make his role public and also his hesitation to immediately confront the Philistines are not a sign of humility, but rather are an early example of the kind of disobedience to God and his prophet Samuel that eventually would bring God’s great anger against him.

Saul’s first significant failure, however, occurred before a battle with the Philistines, while he and his army were camped at Gilgal (1Sam. 13). Before initiating battle, it was necessary to offer sacrifices. Samuel the priest, however, was late in arriving. Saul grew nervous because his troops were deserting, so he sacrificed the animals. When Samuel arrived, he confronted Saul. After all, with God on one’s side, large numbers of troops were unnecessary. Saul thus displayed a lack of confidence in God by his actions. For this, Samuel announced that he would not found a dynasty of kings (13:13–14).

Soon thereafter, Saul showed his disobedience in another important aspect of war. Upon victory, the king should immediately offer all the plunder to God. In addition, if the enemy came from within the land, all the captives were to be put to death (see Holy War). However, after defeating the hated Amalekites (cf. Exod. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–19), Saul kept the sheep and did not personally execute King Agag, their leader (1Sam. 15). For this, Samuel announced God’s decision to remove him from the kingship and anoint another king (15:26).

At this time, Samuel anointed David, but David did not immediately become king (1Sam. 16:1–13). For a period of time, David entered into Saul’s service (16:14–23). It was never David’s intention to forcibly remove Saul from the throne (1Sam. 24; 26), but Saul grew intensely jealous of this popular young man. Indeed, Saul was a man deeply plagued by mental problems, perhaps depression and paranoia, even before the conflict with David. His jealousy also brought him into conflict with his own brave son, Jonathan, who had a deep friendship with David. Saul ejected David from the court and then spent much of his energy trying to track him down and kill him. He was, however, unsuccessful.

Eventually, God abandoned Saul. He was defeated and killed by the Philistines in the battle of Mount Gilboa (1Sam. 31), and David mourned his death and the death of his friend Jonathan (2Sam. 1).

(2)Another name for the apostle Paul (see Paul).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerusalem was held by the Jebusites, who mocked David’s forces. But David captured the city, which from then on bore the title “City of David,” also called “fortress of Zion” (2Sam. 5:59). David made it his capital. Later, Solomon built the temple there, making it also the religious center of the nation (1Kings 8:1–14). “Zion” (of uncertain meaning) sometimes is a designation for the city of Jerusalem. It is said to have towers, ramparts, and citadels (Ps. 48:12–13), and Jeremiah prophesied its razing (Jer. 26:18). But it is also a designation for the mountain on which the city is built (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 8:3).

Since the God of Israel has a special relationship with Israel and its king, God’s purposes for the world often are couched in terms of Mount Zion. God set his king on Mount Zion (Ps. 2:6). The psalmist praises God, who has established Zion “forever” (Ps. 48:1–8). It is there that God is said to reign (Isa. 24:23). Nevertheless, the king on David’s throne and the inhabitants of Zion can be censured by God and found wanting (Amos 6:1). In fact, it is precisely because God identifies with the city that the people bear particular responsibility to represent his character. Thus, the time came when Zion was indeed “plowed like a field” (Mic. 3:12). Lamentations mourns Zion’s destruction numerous times. After God’s people spent a period of time in exile, God brought them back to Zion (Ps. 126). Although the ancient city was again destroyed by the Romans, Zion has become in the NT a symbol of the present heavenly dwelling place of God, entered into by faith (Heb. 12:22), and the future destiny of the saints (Rev. 14:1).

Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed ofvarious materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Somealtars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place.They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection orfalse worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

OldTestament

Noahand the patriarchs. Thefirst reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after theflood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character ofthe mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’sresting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of theextra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3).They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizingself-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the humanrace.

Abrambuilt altars “to the Lord” at places where God appearedand spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4,18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with thesealtars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments ormemorials of significant events. In association with Abram’saltars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord”(12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic proceduresassociated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation ofpriests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeedinggenerations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob(33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demandthat he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience,Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’sintervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9,13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim,to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Mosesand the tabernacle.In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gaveMoses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26;cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (ofsun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose naturalstones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones,perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making thisprohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6).Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps forthe priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. Therequirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern(Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the numberrepresenting the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Mosesfor the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half theblood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?)and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenantbond created (24:6–8).

Forthe tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” wasmade (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden framessheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was aledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hungbronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles wereslipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood wassmeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in thecourtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle.Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altarof incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10;37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for itstood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle,“in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenantlaw,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from theholy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altarevery morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedureand the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishingsin Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense afterspeaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that theincense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb.9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near theark.

God,through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the PromisedLand they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the otherparaphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Agealtars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altarsand a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar”by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explainedto the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica ofthe altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering ofsacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary bothexpressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nationat this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In laternarratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17),Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said tobuild altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and infact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. Theestablished custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in thenation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53;2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clingingto the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’stemple and rival worship centers.In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged tothe “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple wasmade before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22,54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that hadbeen in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Althoughmany of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in thefirst temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar inthe Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They expressthe psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the placewhere God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

Afterthe division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rivalaltar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). Anunnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’sdesecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future(1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in thenorthern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and theother altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13).Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and thesuppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of theLord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on MountCarmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars(1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls thatof Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusivemonotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

Withregard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the timeof Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on theAssyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front ofthe temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’sreligious reform included the removal of the altars at the highplaces that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship(2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itselfin his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father haddestroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thusrepeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’sreform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem(2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalemtemple.

InEzekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, thesacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). Thealtar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and ahorn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on itseastern side for the use of the priests.

Thesecond temple.The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with theexpress aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that thepriests did was to build “the altar on its foundation”(i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed thealtar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babyloniansdestroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because theywanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grantthem protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophetMalachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that wasmanifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’saltar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings(e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of thebook of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ(in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined asone who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’saltar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which heoffered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument ofHebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritualcalendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was noteaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is notrequired, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenlysanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation(6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altarof incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecutedpeople, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people ofthe earth.

Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denyingourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and liveabundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are inpain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement justwhen others might keep their distance. The compassionate person alsoturns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed intheir character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love ingeneral, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’spain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.

CompassionShown by God

TheOT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward thosewho, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. InExod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they haverebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for theirdeliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them ofhis sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I willhave mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will havecompassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy,yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deservedharm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sinand wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’spatience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to theirjudges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshipedthem!” but God later “was moved to compassion when heheard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them”(2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies onYahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Havemercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according toyour great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1).In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, whocomplains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I wasstill at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious andcompassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God whor*lents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g.,49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).

TheNT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in theGospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowdswho “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”(Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick andfeeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The sameconnection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscoresthis attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father ofour Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the Godof all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is“full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depictsGod as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution andtrial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with brokensinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps.145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for hispeople. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise,and even unrighteous.

CompassionRequired by God

BecauseGod loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflictedwounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parentsought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’sgarment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the onlycovering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When theycry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod.22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, Godrequires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, andacknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt.12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalismand genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “Hehas shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord requireof you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with yourGod.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we mighthave expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it issometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13;Ps. 109:12).

TheNT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is afamiliar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will beshown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion towardthose who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the“Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “sothat we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort weourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is adirect command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners:“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving eachother, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given tous by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there isany “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), wemust follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves]with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience”(Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility andcompassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, besympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble”(1 Pet. 3:8).

TheBible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandablereasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. Wewant always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected byour own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering peopleare burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a readyexcuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior hasshown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.

The second king of Israel (r. 1010–970 BC), founder of a dynasty that continued with his son Solomon (r. 970–931 BC), who ruled all of Israel; subsequently the remaining “sons of David” ruled the southern kingdom, Judah, until 586 BC.

David’s importance can be measured by the vast space devoted to the account of his life (1Sam. 16:1–1Kings 2:12; 1Chron. 11:1–29:30). The titles of many psalms identify him as their author. Although there are no contemporary extrabiblical references to David due to the rarity of inscriptions in Palestine at this time, the “house of David” (or Tel Dan) inscription, dated to the eighth century BC, provides an extraordinarily early reference to his dynasty.

David and Saul

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

At this point the biblical history turns its attention to David. God commands Samuel to go to Bethlehem, specifically to the household of Jesse, to anoint one of his sons as the next king (1Sam. 16). In contrast to Saul, who is notable because of his tall, imposing physical stature (10:23), David is the youngest and smallest of all the children of Jesse, a simple shepherd. Nonetheless, he is the chosen one because God “looks at the heart” (16:7). However, David does not immediately assume the kingship. Indeed, his anointing is kept secret.

The first two accounts of David’s initial public appearance appear in 1Sam. 16:14–17:58. Some doubt attends the question of whether these two stories are chronologically or thematically organized, but in either case they anticipate David’s later role as psalm singer and warrior. The narrative describes David’s work in Saul’s court as a harpist whose music soothes Saul’s tormented mind (16:14–23) and tells the heroic story of David’s courageous stand against Goliath, a gigantic Philistine mercenary (1Sam. 17).

Although David never shows any signs of subversion or disloyalty, his growing popularity increases the paranoia of Saul. However, Saul cannot simply kill off such a popular figure, even though in a fit of madness he throws a spear at him (1Sam. 18:10–11). Saul instead settles on a plan that would lead to David’s death on the battlefield. Saul offers his daughter to David in marriage. After an abortive first attempt involving his daughter Merab, Saul invites him to marry Michal, though as a bride-price he asks through his attendants for one hundred Philistine foreskins (1Sam. 18:25). Saul assumes that David will surely die in the attempt to obtain them, but instead David kills two hundred Philistines and marries Michal. The alliance to the royal house strengthens his later bid for the throne, but for the moment it serves the purpose of making Saul even more suspicious.

While Saul’s hostility increases toward David, Saul’s son Jonathan develops an intense personal friendship with David (1Sam. 18:1–4). Jonathan recognizes his father’s weaknesses and understands that he will not be the next king. He helps David escape his father’s wrath, and forever afterward David is kind to the descendants of Jonathan (1Sam. 19–20).

Eventually, Saul’s murderous intentions toward David become so intense that he must leave the court and live in the hinterlands, moving from place to place, staying one step ahead of Saul and his men. He is not alone, however. With him is an army of six hundred men, a prophet (Gad), and the high priest (Abiathar). In essence, he functions as a kingdom in exile. He saves the Judean city of Keilah from the Philistines (1Sam. 23:1–6) and protects the flocks of Judean landowners such as the aptly named Nabal (“fool”) (1Sam. 25). The latter is not properly grateful for the help, and David is ready to avenge himself against him. Fortunately, Nabal’s wife, Abigail, wisely intercedes with David. Nabal dies of other causes, and David marries Abigail.

David is to be the next king, but he is no usurper. Two times during this period (1Sam. 24; 26) David’s men are in a position to dispatch the king. It may even be possible to justify such a move because Saul is pursuing David to kill him. David knows, however, that it is wrong to harm the anointed of the Lord. He is not going to manipulate the situation and grasp the kingship; he will wait on the Lord’s own timing. David continues to keep out of Saul’s way, even seeking refuge with the Philistines for a period of time.

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

David’s Kingship

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

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

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

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

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

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

David’s Legacy

The account in Chronicles emphasizes David’s role in the preparations for the building of the temple. He had wanted to build the structure, but God says that this task is not for the one who completes the conquest of Canaan (1Chron. 22:8), but rather for his son Solomon, who will inherit a stable nation and whose very name means “peace.”

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

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

Imageryof God

God’scharacter and attributes are revealed primarily through the use ofimagery, the best and most understandable way to describe themysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describeGod’s being and character. Some examples follow here.

Godis compared to the father who shows compassion and love to hischildren (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used bythe prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesuspredominantly uses the language of “Father” in referenceto God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationshipwith the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel evenbefore the Israelites have a human king (1Sam. 10:19).

ThePsalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’ssovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24;74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as theshepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict hisnature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image ofthe potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, whocreates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom.9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as thelong-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the settingof war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against hisenemy (Exod. 15:3).

Godis also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), andlawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is alsofrequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionatecare, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, andmore (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is oftenreferred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, asdoes the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit isidentified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide(John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared tovarious things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps.27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut.32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many imagesin nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g.,Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.

Last,anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’sactivities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak ofGod: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2Chron. 16:9), mouth(Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26),shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Namesand Attributes of God

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

Themost prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which istranslated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At theburning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moseshis personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am”(Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH”seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh,who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the Godwho was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the Godof Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living”(Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tiedto God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (Seealso Names of God.)

Manyof God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “TheLord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger,abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands,and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leavethe guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their childrenfor the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”Below are further explanations of some of the representativeattributes of God.

Holiness.The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all otherattributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by theadjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holyrighteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is theonly supremely holy one (1Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’sname is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemnedas guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one whohas concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned amongthe nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of hisdefiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealedby his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but alsohe expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All thesacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements ofholiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character ofholiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and hebrings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).

Loveand justice.Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledgeof God without having love (1John 4:8). Images of the fatherand the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’slove (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4).God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his onlySon Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1John4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’ssacrificial love (1John 3:16).

God’sjustice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4;Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps.99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’sjustice is demonstrated in judging people according to theirdeeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek.18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice byupholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicatingthose afflicted (1Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial inimplementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, Godrequires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

Godkeeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice.God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa.The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in oneact. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people;because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of theirsins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by thework of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

Righteousnessand mercy.God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’snature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness(Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness andjustice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14).God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work ofJesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness willultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22;cf. Ps. 7:11).

TheEnglish word “mercy” renders various words in theoriginal languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek,charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate thesevariously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,”“kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy”is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’smercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In thePsalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form ofexpression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss.41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosenpeople (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins areforgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), andeven sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14).God is “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

Godkeeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. Hisrighteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does oneoperate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy isshown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent oftheir sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness.God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that hemade with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping hiscovenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him andkeep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to hischaracter, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2Tim.2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seenin fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulnessby fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3;Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build thetemple that he promised to David (2Sam. 7:12–13; 1Kings8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon andreturning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3).God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending JesusChrist, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33;1Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness.Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), inhis work of creation (1Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), andin his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience.God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which isa favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8;Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa.42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophetJonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10).The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people towardrepentance (Rom.2:4).

Godof the Trinity

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

Although the concepts of sin and guilt often overlap, a basicdistinction between the two can be established. In the biblicalsense, sin is basically violation of divine stipulations (what aperson does or does not do), whereas guilt is the resulting state, orone’s “legal” status (what that person has becomeas a result). In essence, one commits sin and becomes guilty (Hab.1:11).

Thestate of being guilty is further distinguished from the punishmentthat it draws, because one can be pronounced guilty and still beexempted from punishment. Nor should guilt be mistaken for theemotional response of the culprits toward themselves and theirvictims. No matter how sincere it may be, remorse does not eliminatethe guilt.

Inthe biblical sense, guilt is something objective and separate fromthe will or intention of the culprit. One can pay back debt andrender the obligation fulfilled. One cannot, however, cancel one’sown guilt. In the sacrificial system of the OT, the offender mustperform restitution to the victim and also give a guilt offering toGod. This reflects the notion that in committing sinful acts inviolation of God’s laws, the culprit has offended not only thevictim but also God. This is what David means in Ps. 51:3–4(with his sin in full display before God, David realizes that he hassinned against God and God alone).

Thisis why those who scoff at the guilt offering are fools (Prov. 14:9).By doing this, they insult God’s being and character. Such abiblical view of guilt implies that forgiveness and restorationshould come from without, from source(s) other than the culprit andvictim. The Bible affirms that the only one capable of offsetting thecost of human sin is the sinless Christ, “the Lamb of God whotakes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). His life was laidon the cross and offered as the acceptable sacrifice for the totalityof guilt, and as a result it freed those who believe in him from theobligation of the guilt.

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit forassociation with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4).God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while“Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’sSpirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49),as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

Withreference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like hisuniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory(Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is,his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’sdwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy”functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly(11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels whosurround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

Acorollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy(Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps.96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While“holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,”this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is anassociated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied topeople and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly orimplicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never“from” something.

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

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

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

God’sfaithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9).In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, andof particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10),prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7)are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tensionbetween the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holinessof its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended toact as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

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

In Christian theology, the Third Person of the Trinity. Theusage derives from the NT, in which the divine Spirit is treated asan independent person who is instrumental in salvation and is worthyof the praise accorded to both the Father and the Son (John 14:16–23;Rom. 8:26–27; 1Pet. 1:2).

OldTestament

Thescarcity of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the OT (only inPs. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11) does not imply lack of interest orimportance. While it should be recognized that in the OT the personof the Holy Spirit receives nothing like the systematic reflectionfound in the NT, when one includes correlative terms, such as “Spiritof God,” “my Spirit,” “wind,” or“breath,” it is apparent that OT writers attributed greatsignificance to God’s Spirit. Thus, the Spirit was at work inthe beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2). Adam and Eve are uniquely givenlife by the breath of God (Gen. 2:7). The Spirit enables the buildingof the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3), gives voice to the message of theprophets (Num. 11:29; cf. 2Pet. 1:21), empowers Israel’sleaders (1Sam. 16:13), and provides access to God’spresence (Ps. 51:11). Yet in all this, the work of the Spirit in theOT is sporadic, occasional, and localized. Thus, the prophets longfor a new age when God’s people will more perfectly enjoy theSpirit’s presence (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; 61:1; Joel 2:28).

NewTestament

TheSpirit in the ministry of Christ.The NT views the OT prophetic hope for the Spirit as fulfilled in andthrough Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18–21). The unique relationshipbetween God’s Holy Spirit and the person and work of Jesusexplains the systemic reflection that the Holy Spirit receives in theNT. This is signaled at the very beginning of Jesus’ life, whenthe Holy Spirit “comes upon” Mary, overshadowing her with“the power of the Most High” (1:35). Similarly, at thestart of Jesus’ public ministry, the Holy Spirit “descendedon him” at baptism (3:22). This anointing by the Spiritinitiates and empowers Jesus’ public ministry, from hispreaching, to his miraculous works, to his perfect obedience (Luke4:14–18; John 3:34; Acts 10:38). Even his sacrificial death isaccomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14).

Significantly,just as the Holy Spirit empowered the life and death of Jesus, so toois the Spirit responsible for his resurrection and characteristic ofhis glorious reign. Death is not a defeat for Jesus: he is“vindicated by the Spirit” (1Tim. 3:16), “appointedthe Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead”(Rom. 1:4; cf. 1Pet. 3:18). Furthermore, at his resurrection,Jesus comes into a new phase of full and perfect possession of theeternal Spirit as the reward for his obedience. So complete is thisunion that Paul at one point claims that “the Lord is theSpirit” (2Cor. 3:17).

TheSpirit in the church and the believer.The church and its members are the immediate beneficiaries ofChrist’s spiritual fullness. Since Jesus is now a “life-givingspirit” through his resurrection and ascension (1Cor.15:45), he is able to fulfill the promise of Spirit baptism (Luke3:16). This baptism takes place in the outpouring of the Spirit atPentecost, which marks the birth of the NT church. The apostles,illuminated by the Holy Spirit, provide true and powerful testimonyabout Jesus (John 16:4–15), testimony that serves as thechurch’s foundation and principal tradition (Eph. 2:20). Thework of the Spirit continues within the church in the postapostolicage, uniting its members in Christ for God’s holy purpose (Eph.2:22).

Thissame outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the salvation of individualbelievers. Believers receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:14). TheSpirit in turn unites them to Christ and all his benefits (Gal. 3:2;Eph. 1:3), including his life (Heb. 4:15–16), suffering (Phil.1:29; 1Pet. 4:14), death (Rom. 6:3), resurrection (Rom. 6:5),justification (Rom. 4:25), and glorious reign in heaven (Phil. 3:20).These benefits, though undoubtedly perfected and consummated only atChrist’s return (Phil. 1:6), are characteristic of believers’present experience, enjoyed now because the Spirit dwells within themas the “firstfruits” of the harvest to come (Rom. 8:23;cf. Gal. 2:19–20). This indwelling of the Spirit results in newbirth and new creation (2Cor. 5:17), a newness identified withthe life that Christ received in his resurrection (Rom. 8:11).

Forthis reason, believers are urged to further the work of the Spirit intheir lives until the bodily resurrection of all God’s people.They are to cultivate the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal.5:22), and they are correspondingly warned not to “grieve theHoly Spirit” (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore, since new life isinitiated by the Spirit (John 3:6–8), Christians are to remainin that Spirit, not turning aside in reliance on vain and uselessprinciples (Gal. 3:1–5). Conversely, they are to be “filledwith the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), putting off the old person andputting on the new (4:22). This filling grounds every aspect of thebeliever’s life, from obedience, to worship, to the hope ofresurrection. The Spirit, in uniting believers to all the riches ofChrist and his resurrection, is therefore central in the work ofsalvation. See also Spirit.

The Hebrew word translated “hyssop,” ’ezob,occurs ten times in the OT, five of them in Lev. 14. Although thereis some question regarding the identity of the plant, it clearly issmall, in contrast to the cedar of Lebanon (1Kings 4:33). Whenbranches of hyssop are bundled together, the leaf structure holdsliquids. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the blood of the Passover lambon the lintels and doorposts of the Israelite houses (Exod. 12:22).Its use in conjunction both with sprinkling blood on persons andhouses affected by infectious skin diseases and mildew (Lev. 14) andwith burning the red heifer (Num. 19:1–6) suggests that itsaromatic properties were also significant in countering the stench ofblood and burning flesh. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the purificationwater from the heifer on objects and individuals that had come incontact with a corpse (Num. 19:18). The impact of these ceremonialpurification rites gave hyssop symbolic significance; it representedcleansing from sin (Ps. 51:7) and humility.

TheEnglish word “hyssop” comes from the Greek word hyssōpos,itself of Semitic origin. At the crucifixion, in response to Jesus’cry “I thirst,” a sponge soaked in vinegar was lifted onbranch of hyssop to Jesus (John 19:29). If the plant is of the smallherb variety, lifting the sponge on a branch of hyssop seemsunlikely. Some suggest that the Greek really is a similar word thatmeans “javelin” (hyssos). Others maintain that John, whois the only evangelist to mention the hyssop, is more interested inthe symbolic aspects of hyssop and the connection to Passover withthe death of Jesus, the Passover Lamb. The combination of purity andhumility may be why John included it in the crucifixion scene. Theauthor of Hebrews enhanced the description of the covenantratification ceremony (Exod. 24:1–8) by including the ritualelements of scarlet wool and hyssop from Num. 19 and Lev. 14 alongwith water and the blood of sacrificial animals (Heb. 9:19).

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

Sinin the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitionand Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metaphors

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

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

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

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

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

Scopeand Consequences

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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).

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OTperiod, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of differentlengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributedto Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 andPs. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millenniumBC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship andprivate devotion.

HistoricalBackground

Mostpsalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises thefirst verse, whereas English translations set it off before the firstverse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph[Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide informationabout genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune(e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps.92), and a circ*mstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Informationin the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written andbrought into a final collection.

Composition

Asmentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications ofauthorship and occasionally name the circ*mstance that led to thewriting of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the titlestates, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When theprophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery withBathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the eventsrecorded in 2Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote thesong in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Althoughonly a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it islikely that most psalms were composed in response to some specificcirc*mstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly,though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circ*mstance inthe psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with thesituation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt towardGod and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specificallyabout adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they arewriting the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as aprayer that others who have had similar though not identicalexperiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a modelprayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or inanother way.

Mostmodern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance,was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe thathe felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being aslave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing itas reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

Thepsalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appearsthat the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to aclose at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In1Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the processworked. The text describes David turning a musical composition overto the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely thatthe priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holyplace (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were thehymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporatebook of prayer, though certainly they could be used in privatedevotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1Sam. 2:1–10 andits relationship to Ps. 113).

Organizationand Structure

Thepsalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of allthe psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship,time of composition, or length. There is only one statement aboutorganization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayersof David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it issurprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequentsections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145).The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded theDavidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonicalorder was permanently closed.

Anumber of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure tothe book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to theoverall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics areobvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems toreflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I.Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II.Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III.Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV.Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V.Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Eachbook ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with thePentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim toauthority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’sword.

Second,within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there arepsalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. Thebest-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134),probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up(ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religiousfestivals in Jerusalem.

Third,it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning andat the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion.Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader tothe twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces ablessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all,are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be onthe side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as onemust be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the readerenters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one(messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss.146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

Thisleads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lamentpredominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymnsof praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psaltermourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings thereader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader fromsadness to joy.

LiteraryConsiderations

Genre.The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems.Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of thepoet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment.Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms canbe recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament.The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized bythe expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger,worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at timescomplaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10).Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while othersassert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments evencontain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm thepsalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God orreaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reasonfor the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvationevents in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, lamentsbut never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet evenhere we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is stillspeaking to God.

• Thanksgiving.When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms ofthanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite anearlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God forrestoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after hesuffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv.6–7).

• Hymn.Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. Thepsalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps.100).

• Remembrance.While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past(as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus onrehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of themost memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divineaction (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea”[v.15]) followed by a congregational response (“His loveendures forever”).

• Confidence.These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even inthe midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God.The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131are good examples.

• Wisdom.Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interestssimilar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, andEcclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship.A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king ashis agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps.2).

Style.The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the useof parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable forits short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words.So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order toderive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression,parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by usingother literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not onlyto inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate theirimagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery;Poetry.)

TheologicalMessage

Althoughthe psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about Godand their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalmsis a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe whohe is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examplesinclude God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98),and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Eachone of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and alsothe nature of our relationship with God. After all, theaforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’speople as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connectionto the New Testament and Today

Jesushimself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated hiscoming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). TheGospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressedby Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on thecross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). TheNT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenantthat promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne(2Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110)often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “theanointed one”).

Todaywe read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work ofChrist but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. Thepsalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similarthough not identical joys and problems. The psalms should becomemodels of our prayers.

The concepts of purity and purification are largelyunfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms oftenappear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual,and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the processneeded to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or shecould participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7).These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrainactions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in theirancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene(e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medicaladvantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]).Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simplephysical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for therange of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

OldTestament

Thelaw of Moses. Accordingto Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguishbetween the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean”and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. Godrequired that his people observe purification rites when they cameinto his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teachGod’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification ritualsfunctioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num.8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaiclaw.

Twomajor sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws ofpurification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need forpurification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one ofa number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8),scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev.15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47),and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration ofimpurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditionsdiffer, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity:(1)the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural andmore or less unavoidable; (2)it was not necessarily sinful tocontract these impurities; (3)these conditions conveyedtemporary loss of ritual purity.

Althoughsexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and thecontraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they wereunavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligatedto reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests,were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore,many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged,not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed atemporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites ofpurification. These rites included washings (a man who had adischarge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed inorder to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of achild, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certainofferings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood”[12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” manwho had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to bedeclared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house wentthrough a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance ofcleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as thepurifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the bloodon [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and toconsecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

Afinal characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded;that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impuritywas especially serious and highly contagious. One could contractcorpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the sametent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone orthe grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpseimpurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Majorimpurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven daysrather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lastedonly until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals mightcontract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whetherby touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someonedefiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseasedperson or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or dischargefrom either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23,26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“untilevening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), andone was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

TheProphets and the Writings.Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and“purification” are much less common; however, at timesthey are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity isused figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical termfor “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively toillustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands,but there is no one to comfort her.... Jerusalemhas become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and inEzek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in theirown land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Theirconduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

Itwas not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for theprophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered peoplepure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’sforgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash andmake yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stopdoing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing inkey passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you,and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impuritiesand from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “theywill no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images orwith any of their offenses, for I will save them from all theirsinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Althoughthere are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are notcleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who canpromise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they havecommitted against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellionagainst me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin withBathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity andcleanse me from my sin.... Cleanse me with hyssop,and I will be clean.... Create in me a pure heart,O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element inJewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as inthe prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived inwholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeyingthe truth (1Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms ofpurity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts,you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping thosein distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Fatheraccepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

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

OldTestament

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

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

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

NewTestament

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

Components

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

Prepositionsof Salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tensesof Salvation

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Sinin the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitionand Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metaphors

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

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

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

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

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

Scopeand Consequences

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

The word “tongue” has several senses in bothTestaments. In the OT, lashon refers to the physical organ (Judg.7:5; Job 20:12; 41:1), the physical tongue that creates speech(2Sam. 23:2; Job 6:30), and the physical organ in reference toindividuals as they profess before God (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11;Phil. 2:11).

Theword “tongue” frequently refers to language (Gen. 10:5;Neh. 13:24; Isa. 28:11; cf. 1Cor. 14:21). Related to this, theword refers to speech as deceitful (Ps. 52:2), as speaking strife(31:20 KJV, RSV), or as that which praises God (35:28). The tonguesings (Ps. 51:14) and extols (66:17).

Thetongue is able to produce very powerful speech that can bring lifeand death (Prov. 18:21). To guard one’s speech is to betrouble-free (21:23). Soft and forbearing speech is persuasive andwins the day rather than aggravates (25:15). Flattering speech seemsfavorable but will be disregarded in the end (28:23).

Thespeech of God is a consuming fire (Isa. 30:27). The mute will havespeech when all things are set right in the eschaton (35:6).

Inthe OT, the word “tongue” is used in parallel withseveral other words. The physical organ is parallel to lips (Ps.12:4), mouth (Job 33:2; Pss. 10:7; 50:19), or throat (Ps. 5:9, wherethe tongue is the source of flattery).

Asimilar Hebrew word, sapah,has several senses, among them “lip” (and so also oftenof the edge or shore of a body of water), and can refer to thelanguage produced by lips. It is sometimes placed in parallel withlashon (Ps. 12:4).

Inthe NT, the word glōssa refers to the physical organ (Mark7:33–35) and language (Acts 2:11; 1Cor. 14:21[heteroglōssos]) and can refer to the miraculous gift oflanguages (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1Cor. 12–14).Luke also uses the word in the unusualdescription of the gift of languages coming on the disciples—tonguesof fire resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3).

Finally,James, writing in the style of OT wisdom literature, notes that anuncontrolled tongue—unbridled speech—is not indicative ofthe people of God (James 1:26–27) and is ultimately destructive(3:5–10). See also Speech Impediment.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate thedeeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). Godsaves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christalone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or“fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works alsobecome God’s standard when the lost are condemned in hisheavenly court, since he “will repay each person according towhat they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom.2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentallychallenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law wellenough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treatpeople who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly anevangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appealsto the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability”before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this agevaries with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse thisidea?

Theparents of miscarried children and those whose children have died atan early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to thisquestion. They want to hear that they will see their children again;and the position taken here is that they will, though for a differentreason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not saythat the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven,because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss.51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overtsins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies thatthey suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case ofsalvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped isdecided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and standin need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work ofChrist to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agentsand respond consciously to the gospel? A circ*mstantial case can bemade for answering in the affirmative to this question, with thiscaveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. Itdoes not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentiallyinfants in God’s sight and thus justified by similararrangements.

Webegin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes,even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, fillinghim with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15).David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from theirearliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal.1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in somecases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respondconsciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited withhis deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will notreturn to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the responseof Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukeshis disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’skingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainlyto show adults what discipleship means, with special reference tohumility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care nomore for our social status and dignity than young children typicallydo. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes childreninto his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean nomore to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children lowon their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raisesthem all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educatedguess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while childrenstill need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by othermeans and thus go to heaven when they die.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate thedeeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). Godsaves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christalone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or“fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works alsobecome God’s standard when the lost are condemned in hisheavenly court, since he “will repay each person according towhat they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom.2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentallychallenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law wellenough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treatpeople who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly anevangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appealsto the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability”before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this agevaries with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse thisidea?

Theparents of miscarried children and those whose children have died atan early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to thisquestion. They want to hear that they will see their children again;and the position taken here is that they will, though for a differentreason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not saythat the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven,because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss.51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overtsins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies thatthey suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case ofsalvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped isdecided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and standin need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work ofChrist to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agentsand respond consciously to the gospel? A circ*mstantial case can bemade for answering in the affirmative to this question, with thiscaveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. Itdoes not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentiallyinfants in God’s sight and thus justified by similararrangements.

Webegin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes,even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, fillinghim with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15).David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from theirearliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal.1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in somecases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respondconsciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited withhis deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will notreturn to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the responseof Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukeshis disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’skingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainlyto show adults what discipleship means, with special reference tohumility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care nomore for our social status and dignity than young children typicallydo. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes childreninto his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean nomore to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children lowon their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raisesthem all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educatedguess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while childrenstill need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by othermeans and thus go to heaven when they die.

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OTperiod, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of differentlengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributedto Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 andPs. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millenniumBC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship andprivate devotion.

HistoricalBackground

Mostpsalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises thefirst verse, whereas English translations set it off before the firstverse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph[Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide informationabout genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune(e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps.92), and a circ*mstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Informationin the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written andbrought into a final collection.

Composition

Asmentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications ofauthorship and occasionally name the circ*mstance that led to thewriting of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the titlestates, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When theprophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery withBathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the eventsrecorded in 2Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote thesong in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Althoughonly a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it islikely that most psalms were composed in response to some specificcirc*mstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly,though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circ*mstance inthe psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with thesituation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt towardGod and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specificallyabout adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they arewriting the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as aprayer that others who have had similar though not identicalexperiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a modelprayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or inanother way.

Mostmodern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance,was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe thathe felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being aslave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing itas reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

Thepsalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appearsthat the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to aclose at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In1Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the processworked. The text describes David turning a musical composition overto the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely thatthe priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holyplace (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were thehymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporatebook of prayer, though certainly they could be used in privatedevotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1Sam. 2:1–10 andits relationship to Ps. 113).

Organizationand Structure

Thepsalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of allthe psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship,time of composition, or length. There is only one statement aboutorganization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayersof David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it issurprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequentsections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145).The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded theDavidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonicalorder was permanently closed.

Anumber of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure tothe book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to theoverall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics areobvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems toreflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I.Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II.Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III.Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV.Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V.Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Eachbook ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with thePentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim toauthority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’sword.

Second,within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there arepsalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. Thebest-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134),probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up(ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religiousfestivals in Jerusalem.

Third,it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning andat the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion.Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader tothe twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces ablessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all,are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be onthe side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as onemust be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the readerenters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one(messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss.146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

Thisleads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lamentpredominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymnsof praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psaltermourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings thereader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader fromsadness to joy.

LiteraryConsiderations

Genre.The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems.Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of thepoet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment.Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms canbe recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament.The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized bythe expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger,worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at timescomplaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10).Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while othersassert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments evencontain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm thepsalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God orreaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reasonfor the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvationevents in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, lamentsbut never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet evenhere we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is stillspeaking to God.

• Thanksgiving.When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms ofthanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite anearlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God forrestoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after hesuffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv.6–7).

• Hymn.Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. Thepsalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps.100).

• Remembrance.While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past(as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus onrehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of themost memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divineaction (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea”[v.15]) followed by a congregational response (“His loveendures forever”).

• Confidence.These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even inthe midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God.The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131are good examples.

• Wisdom.Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interestssimilar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, andEcclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship.A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king ashis agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps.2).

Style.The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the useof parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable forits short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words.So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order toderive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression,parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by usingother literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not onlyto inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate theirimagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery;Poetry.)

TheologicalMessage

Althoughthe psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about Godand their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalmsis a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe whohe is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examplesinclude God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98),and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Eachone of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and alsothe nature of our relationship with God. After all, theaforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’speople as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connectionto the New Testament and Today

Jesushimself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated hiscoming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). TheGospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressedby Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on thecross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). TheNT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenantthat promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne(2Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110)often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “theanointed one”).

Todaywe read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work ofChrist but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. Thepsalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similarthough not identical joys and problems. The psalms should becomemodels of our prayers.

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).

Human Freedom and Divine Freedom

The concept of freedom has three aspects, the first one being legal, or forensic. We are free to watch television, visit Alabama, and collect stamps. In other words, we may do these things because no law forbids them, and no forces deter us. The second aspect is potential, by which we are free to do something if we can actually do it, apart from the question of legality. In this sense, one is free to lift ten pounds but not ten thousand pounds. The third aspect is psychological, meaning that persons are free who can make up their own minds, unaffected by forces that flatly determine what they think and desire. Most people, therefore, enjoy substantial freedom, defined in these three ways. They can and may do all sorts of things, and they are mentally stable. Nevertheless, human freedom is relative, not absolute. We are not God.

God’s freedom differs from our own at all three levels described above. First, God makes the rules (forensic). Second, he has the power to do whatever he likes (potential). He always reigns and never is subject to anyone or anything. Likewise, third, although God cannot violate his own logical principles, no external forces determine what he thinks and does (psychological). Consequently, God is absolutely free, and human beings are not. We lack God’s power and knowledge, and we must live by his rules. In fact, even our thoughts and desires are shaped by external factors, all of which trace back to God himself. He fashions us in our mother’s womb, and he sovereignly ordains our life experiences, the very ones that affect our desires and character (Ps. 139). Thus, our personality types and preferences are assigned to us by circ*mstance, and we act upon them in a mildly deterministic way. Of course, the biblical writers do not regard these factors as operating coercively, so that we make no actual choices in what we approve, decide, and become. Otherwise, God would not bother to reveal himself and his will for our lives. We are not rigidly preprogrammed agents; but then again, we do not have God’s own kind of liberty.

Freedom and Determinism

Some critics of biblical theism might complain that a little determinism, in this sense, goes a long way toward depersonalizing human beings. If we live in the Christian world, the concern is, we must frankly and only refer to the prior causes of our actions and ignore their supposed rationales, since those causes threaten to override all other considerations. But some kind of determinism plays a role in any worldview that allows human behavior to be even fallibly predictable. A shallow rut is still a rut that we are in, and no plausible worldview can dodge this fact of experience. Furthermore, some worldviews leave no room at all for free human choices, even in the qualified sense that Christianity implies. Materialism (or naturalism) would fit this description because it reduces all events, including mental ones, to relentless physical processes. Within that system, human beings can no more choose to act than iron chooses to rust. It is no strike against a worldview that it entails some sort of determinism; the question is, rather, whether it leaves room for anything else.

In one sense, however, the biblical writers construe all of us as slaves. We live under the immediate (not ultimate) reign of sin and death, and we have been doing so ever since the events of Gen. 3. Joshua presupposes this sort of problem in telling the Israelites, “You are not able to serve the Lord,” never mind their vows to do so (Josh. 24:19). In Ps. 51:5 David confesses, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Accordingly, Jeremiah says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). One could argue that humanity’s captivity to sin is a background theme of the entire OT, and even one of its overall lessons. The apostle Paul, however, actually uses the human institution of slavery to illustrate how desperate the sinner’s condition really is outside of Christ (Rom. 5–6). The unbeliever, though able to choose not to do evil in any particular case, cannot be righteous before God. The believer can still choose to sin—this side of glory—but will not do so habitually and unrepentantly. Using the terms introduced above, we might say that unregenerate persons lack the potential and psychological freedom to please God consistently. They will not desire to do so, and they will not succeed, whatever their transient desires are. The believer enjoys both kinds of freedom, relative to the lost person, but not absolutely. Glorification itself must and will consolidate the change.

Religious Liberty

Finally, the Christian view of salvation requires us to affirm “religious” liberty, which is a legal idea. We do not support laws that push people into churches and out of mosques and temples, because we believe that adults should make these choices voluntarily. Indeed, one cannot receive Christ in any other way, because a coerced decision involves no actual trust in him and confidence in what he promises. Moreover, the Bible says that God himself enables the believer to trust Christ, and he does so through the preaching of his word (Rom. 10:14–15; 1Cor. 1:21; Eph. 2:1–10). Arm-twisting has no place within this framework, given its attempt to manipulate what the Holy Spirit effects. Only on the day of judgment will God impose his will on humanity coercively (Phil. 2:10–11). Thus, while every person has the duty to obey God’s laws (Rom. 1–2), and though rejecting Christ compounds the sinner’s guilt (Heb. 2:2–3), we have no biblical warrant to believe that the church has God’s blessing to evangelize with red tape and rifles.

Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed ofvarious materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Somealtars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place.They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection orfalse worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

OldTestament

Noahand the patriarchs. Thefirst reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after theflood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character ofthe mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’sresting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of theextra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3).They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizingself-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the humanrace.

Abrambuilt altars “to the Lord” at places where God appearedand spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4,18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with thesealtars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments ormemorials of significant events. In association with Abram’saltars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord”(12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic proceduresassociated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation ofpriests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeedinggenerations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob(33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demandthat he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience,Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’sintervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9,13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim,to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Mosesand the tabernacle.In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gaveMoses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26;cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (ofsun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose naturalstones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones,perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making thisprohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6).Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps forthe priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. Therequirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern(Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the numberrepresenting the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Mosesfor the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half theblood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?)and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenantbond created (24:6–8).

Forthe tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” wasmade (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden framessheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was aledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hungbronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles wereslipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood wassmeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in thecourtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle.Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altarof incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10;37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for itstood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle,“in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenantlaw,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from theholy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altarevery morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedureand the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishingsin Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense afterspeaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that theincense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb.9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near theark.

God,through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the PromisedLand they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the otherparaphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Agealtars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altarsand a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar”by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explainedto the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica ofthe altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering ofsacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary bothexpressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nationat this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In laternarratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17),Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said tobuild altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and infact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. Theestablished custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in thenation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53;2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clingingto the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’stemple and rival worship centers.In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged tothe “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple wasmade before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22,54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that hadbeen in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Althoughmany of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in thefirst temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar inthe Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They expressthe psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the placewhere God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

Afterthe division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rivalaltar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). Anunnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’sdesecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future(1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in thenorthern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and theother altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13).Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and thesuppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of theLord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on MountCarmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars(1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls thatof Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusivemonotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

Withregard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the timeof Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on theAssyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front ofthe temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’sreligious reform included the removal of the altars at the highplaces that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship(2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itselfin his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father haddestroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thusrepeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’sreform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem(2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalemtemple.

InEzekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, thesacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). Thealtar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and ahorn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on itseastern side for the use of the priests.

Thesecond temple.The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with theexpress aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that thepriests did was to build “the altar on its foundation”(i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed thealtar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babyloniansdestroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because theywanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grantthem protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophetMalachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that wasmanifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’saltar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings(e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of thebook of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ(in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined asone who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’saltar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which heoffered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument ofHebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritualcalendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was noteaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is notrequired, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenlysanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation(6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altarof incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecutedpeople, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people ofthe earth.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate thedeeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). Godsaves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christalone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or“fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works alsobecome God’s standard when the lost are condemned in hisheavenly court, since he “will repay each person according towhat they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom.2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentallychallenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law wellenough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treatpeople who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly anevangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appealsto the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability”before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this agevaries with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse thisidea?

Theparents of miscarried children and those whose children have died atan early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to thisquestion. They want to hear that they will see their children again;and the position taken here is that they will, though for a differentreason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not saythat the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven,because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss.51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overtsins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies thatthey suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case ofsalvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped isdecided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and standin need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work ofChrist to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agentsand respond consciously to the gospel? A circ*mstantial case can bemade for answering in the affirmative to this question, with thiscaveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. Itdoes not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentiallyinfants in God’s sight and thus justified by similararrangements.

Webegin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes,even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, fillinghim with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15).David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from theirearliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal.1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in somecases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respondconsciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited withhis deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will notreturn to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the responseof Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukeshis disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’skingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainlyto show adults what discipleship means, with special reference tohumility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care nomore for our social status and dignity than young children typicallydo. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes childreninto his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean nomore to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children lowon their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raisesthem all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educatedguess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while childrenstill need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by othermeans and thus go to heaven when they die.

Justification is an important topic because of itsrelationship to Christian salvation and sanctification. The word“justification” occurs only five times in the Bible(NIV), but related words comprise significant themes in bothTestaments. Part of the difficulty in the exposition of“justification” is English terminology. English has twoword groups that express the same conceptual range for single wordgroups in Hebrew and Greek. So in addition to words related tojustification, such as “justly,” “just,” andthe very important verb “to justify,” no discussion canavoid the terms “righteous” and “righteousness.”Care must also be exercised in allowing the biblical texts todetermine word meaning, since both “justice” and“righteousness” terminology can have contemporaryconnotations foreign to the biblical texts.

Justificationis often related to a legal setting in both Jewish and Greco-Romancontexts, with its judge, defendant, evidence, criteria forevaluating the evidence, verdicts, and the implications of verdicts.This is a good word picture for justification and is used in theBible itself. As long as the legal picture is extended to everydayaffairs, moral and ethical concerns, and different criteria forevidence evaluation, it is a fine starting point for understandingthe doctrine of justification.

Commonand Extraordinary Justification

Thesalvific importance of justification has greatly shaped theexposition that follows. Justification has been somewhat awkwardlydivided into common and extraordinary justification, with the latterbearing a significant relationship to the doctrine of salvation. Theformer is discussed only briefly in OT and NT paragraphs. In commonjustification, a person’s works or deeds are judged accordingto a standard of righteousness. Righteous deeds are judged and giventhe verdict “righteous.” Unrighteous deeds are judged andgiven the verdict “unrighteous.” Extraordinaryjustification occurs when an unrighteous person or deed is judged andgiven the verdict “righteous” by some supernaturalintervention.

Commonjustification in the OT may be described in various contexts: (1)incomparative or relative righteousness between humans (e.g., Gen.38:26; Ezek. 16:51–52); (2)in specific or concretesituations with God as judge (e.g., 2Chron. 6:23: “Judgebetween your servants, condemning the guilty and bringing down ontheir heads what they have done, and vindicating the innocent bytreating them in accordance with their innocence”; (3)inspecific or concrete situations with a human as judge (e.g., Deut.25:1: “When people have a dispute, they are to take it to courtand the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent andcondemning the guilty”); (4)in giving justice (e.g.,2Sam. 15:4; cf. Ps. 82:3); (5)in proving correct or right(e.g., Ps. 51:4; Isa. 43:9).

Extraordinaryjustification is much rarer in the OT. A possible example is Dan.8:14, where in a vision the sanctuary is desecrated and after a time“will be reconsecrated” or, in other terms, “willbe justified holy.” It seems quite unusual that the unholy “isjustified” as holy. In Isa. 45:25 we find the promise that “inthe Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified” (ESV).Another verse declares that Yahweh’s “righteous servantwill justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isa.53:11). The need for extraordinary justification and the deficiencyof ordinary justification is clear in Ps. 143:1–2: “Lord,hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness andrighteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant intojudgment, for no one living is righteous before you” (cf. Job4:17; 25:4). The last phrase might be translated “no personwill be justified before you” and is cited by the apostle Paulin Gal. 2:16 (cf. Rom. 3:20).

Inthe NT, there are fewer references to common justification than inthe OT and a much greater development of extraordinary justification,predominantly in the Pauline letters (for similar concepts indifferent terms, see, e.g., “kingdom of God” in theSynoptic Gospels or “eternal life” in the Gospel ofJohn). Common justification in the NT may be described in variouscontexts: (1)in a specific situation with a human or God asjudge and a person’s behavior as the object of judgment (e.g.,Luke 16:15; 1Cor. 4:3–4; perhaps Luke 10:29; 18:9–14);(2)when “wisdom is proved right,” meaningvindicated by the results (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35); (3)in therelease from demands no longer binding (Rom. 6:7; cf. 1Cor.6:1); (4)in being proved morally right in fullness (1Tim.3:16; cf. Rom. 3:4).

Pauland Justification

Extraordinaryjustification in the NT is characteristic of the apostle Paul. Luke’sreport of Paul’s synagogue sermon in Pisidian Antioch concludeswith a brief overview of extraordinary justification (Acts 13:38–39).Paul proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through Jesus.Every person trusting in Jesus is being justified “from allthings from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses”(NKJV). The forgiveness of sins leads to the verdict “innocent”even though sinners apart from Christ are guilty before God of theirunrighteous deeds.

InGal. 2:16 the verb “justify” is used three times: (1)“aperson is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in JesusChrist”; (2)“we, too, have put our faith in ChristJesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by theworks of the law”; (3)“by the works of the law noone will be justified.” The statements may be paraphrased inthe active voice (expressing the implied subject) as in thefollowing: (1)God is justifying a person not by works of Mosaiclaw, but by trust in Jesus Christ; (2)God justified us by trustin Christ, not by works of Mosaic law; (3)God will justify noperson by works of Mosaic law. In Gal. 2:16, God is the subject, theagent who justifies (cf. 3:8; Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33). Thebasis of justification is faith in Christ, not works of the Mosaiclaw. The meaning of the verb “justify” may be discernedfrom the context. This justification is related to the gospel (e.g.,Gal. 2:14) and to receiving the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14), and theverdict of “righteous” for the person trusting in Jesus(Gal. 2:21; cf. 3:6, 11; 5:5; 1Cor. 1:30; 2Cor. 5:21).

Justificationand righteousness are important themes in Paul’s letter to theRomans. At the beginning of the letter, Paul declares that he is notashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that bringssalvation to all who believe. In the gospel the righteousness of Godis revealed, a righteousness that is by faith (Rom. 1:16–17).Paul argues in Rom. 1:18–3:20, a section abounding withrighteousness language, that all humanity, Gentile and Jew, is underthe power of sin (3:10), that no one is righteous (e.g., 3:10–18).All are subject to condemnation (i.e., the declaration of “guilty”and “unrighteous” [cf. 5:16]) rather than justification(i.e., the declaration of “innocent” and “righteous”).No human will be justified before God by works of the law; the lawprovides knowledge of sin (3:20).

Thestate resulting from this unrighteousness and sin is God’swrath (e.g., Rom. 1:18). It is into this situation, this sad state ofaffairs where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,that the righteousness of God, God’s saving activity longanticipated in the OT, is revealed in the person and work of JesusChrist (3:21; 10:3). This righteousness is from God (3:22), arighteousness not related to human fulfillment of Mosaic law orrighteousness of one’s own (Rom. 3:21; 9:31–32; 10:4;Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Eph. 2:8–9). This righteousness comes fromGod by trust in Christ (Rom. 3:22; 5:1; 9:30; 10:10; Phil. 3:9). Bytrust in Christ, God justifies each human in his freely given grace,whereby the human is redeemed from unrighteousness and sin (Rom.3:24).

Thedeath of Jesus is the sacrifice of atonement by which forgiveness ofsins is accomplished and made effectual in the human when one trustsin Jesus’ sacrifice (Rom. 3:25). This sacrifice demonstratesGod’s righteousness (3:26) because he justly judges human sinin Jesus. The one who had no sin of his own became sin for us (2Cor.5:21; cf. Rom. 5:6, 8; 1Cor. 15:3). In merciful forbearance,God passes over sins previously committed, delaying the execution ofhis justice, that he might justify the ungodly person who trusts inJesus’ person and work (Rom. 3:26; cf. 4:5). This justificationis of a different nature than ordinary righteousness on the humanlevel or of the kind that can be obtained by observing the Mosaiclaw. In this extraordinary justification, God reckons a humaninnocent of sin and righteous by trust and apart from works of Mosaiclaw (3:28). Both Jew and Gentile are reckoned righteous under thesame condition: trust in Jesus (3:29–30).

Althoughthe revelation of the person and work of Jesus the Messiah wasrelatively new at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Paulemphasizes in Rom. 4 that this idea of justification by trust and notby works goes back to the forefather of the Jews, Abraham. QuotingGen. 15:6, Paul demonstrates from Scripture that trust, not works,was the basis of extraordinary justification: Abraham believes God,and it is credited to him as righteousness. God justifies Abraham(i.e., God credits righteousness to Abraham) on the basis ofAbraham’s trust in God. Paul also cites most of Ps. 32:1–2,from a Davidic psalm, to further demonstrate the consistency ofjustification by faith with previous revelation. In this quotationthe crediting of righteousness apart from works is related to theforgiveness of transgression, where the verdict of the guilty becomes“innocent.” “He was delivered over to death for oursins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).Extraordinary justification of unrighteous sinners leads to thetwofold verdict: innocent and righteous.

Titus3:3–6 expresses the same doctrine of extraordinaryjustification. Humanity is under sin when Jesus appears. God saves inhis mercy through Jesus, not on the basis of righteous human works.This saving activity is equivalent to being justified by Jesus’grace (3:7).

Jamesand Justification

Thereare three references to justification in James 2:14–26, whichappear at first glance to contradict extraordinary justification aspresented by Paul. In support of the claim that faith without deedsis useless (James 2:20), two questions are asked: Was not Abrahamconsidered righteous for what he did, and was not Rahab theprostitute considered righteous for what she did (i.e., justified byworks) (2:21, 25)? James 2:24 rephrases this as a proposition: aperson is justified by what he or she does, not by faith alone. Thecontext of 2:14–26 demonstrates that although the terms“faith,” “works,” and “justification”are the same as Paul’s, they have different meanings for James.Faith appears in this passage as mere knowledge (2:19), without anyimplications for living (2:14–18). For Paul, faith is a radicalcommitment of trust that submits one’s entire life under thelordship of Christ, something much different from the mere beliefportrayed as faith by James. Deeds or works in the James passage arethe concrete manifestations of what one believes (2:18). Works in thePauline justification passages are set in opposition to trust in theperson and work of the Lord Jesus. Outside of the justificationcontext, Paul is an advocate of works properly related to faith,righteousness, and holiness (e.g., Eph. 2:10; 1Thess. 1:3; cf.Rom. 1:5; 6:1–23; 8:4; 12:1–2). Justification is alsodifferent. Pauline justification most commonly relates to theextraordinary justification of declaring unrighteous sinners“innocent” and “righteous” based on trust inChrist. Justification in James has greater ties to commonjustification, focusing on the righteousness of a specific act at aspecific time.

OtherViews on Justification

Shortlyafter the age of the apostles, the doctrine of justification wasdeemphasized in many circles of church life in favor of a moremoralistic system. One group has repeatedly argued for centuries thatjustification infuses righteousness into the believer, and then thebeliever must do good works to complete justification. Thisconception fails to differentiate between sanctification andjustification and also misrepresents justification. In justificationGod declares the believer innocent and righteous, forgiving sin bymeans of Christ’s sacrifice and imputing Christ’srighteousness to the believer. This is not “legal fiction,”since justification has past, present, and future aspects (Rom. 3:30;8:30–34; Gal. 2:16; 5:5). Believers have been, are being, andwill be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. Recently, some haveclaimed that justification is related exclusively to the inclusion ofGentiles into the people of God without “works of the law,”racial and national identity markers (e.g., circumcision or foodlaws). Among the weaknesses of this view, the key one is that bothJew and Gentile are in need of extraordinary justification (Rom. 3:9,19–20, 23–26, 30; 9:30–10:13; Gal. 2:15–3:14).

The Aramaic translation of Ps. 22:1, which Jesus cried out onthe cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), meaning, “My God, my God,why have you forsaken me?” Jesus may have continued on andquoted the rest of the psalm. The Gospel writers, in any case,pattern part of their account of the crucifixion on elements of Ps.22.

Howis it that God forsakes Jesus, or forsakes at all? Verses such asJosh. 1:5, where God promises to “never forsake,” tend toget more attention than God’s threats to abandon. Speakingthrough Azariah to Asa in 2Chron. 15:2, God made his presenceconditional and warned that he would forsake Asa if Asa forsook him.In Jer. 23:33 God is forthright: “I will forsake you, declaresthe Lord.” So, what does it mean for God to be with or toforsake someone? The promise to Joshua was that God would give himsuccess in the task of conquering Canaan (Josh. 1:5; cf. 6:27;14:12), and even for Joshua the promise was conditional (7:12). Aprincipal meaning of God being with someone is that God will givethat person success in a task. In the OT, when God is said to abandonan individual, it refers to a task or role, not absolute abandonmentfrom relationship. David knew that God had abandoned King Saul(1Sam. 15:26; 16:14, 23; 18:12; 28:16). So after his adulterywith Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, David pled with God, “Donot cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me”(Ps. 51:11). His plea was that he might retain his role as king.

Psalm22 presents a question, not a prophetic declaration, but thepsalmist’s perception depends on the idea that God can forsakehim. The psalm is Davidic and certainly applies to the royal line andextends to Jesus. When on the cross, Jesus had been left by God tothe devices of his foes. The agonizing question and the followingdescription of affliction as well as the confidence of being heard byGod are fitting for the Davidic heir on the cross.

The Aramaic translation of Ps. 22:1, which Jesus cried out onthe cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), meaning, “My God, my God,why have you forsaken me?” Jesus may have continued on andquoted the rest of the psalm. The Gospel writers, in any case,pattern part of their account of the crucifixion on elements of Ps.22.

Howis it that God forsakes Jesus, or forsakes at all? Verses such asJosh. 1:5, where God promises to “never forsake,” tend toget more attention than God’s threats to abandon. Speakingthrough Azariah to Asa in 2Chron. 15:2, God made his presenceconditional and warned that he would forsake Asa if Asa forsook him.In Jer. 23:33 God is forthright: “I will forsake you, declaresthe Lord.” So, what does it mean for God to be with or toforsake someone? The promise to Joshua was that God would give himsuccess in the task of conquering Canaan (Josh. 1:5; cf. 6:27;14:12), and even for Joshua the promise was conditional (7:12). Aprincipal meaning of God being with someone is that God will givethat person success in a task. In the OT, when God is said to abandonan individual, it refers to a task or role, not absolute abandonmentfrom relationship. David knew that God had abandoned King Saul(1Sam. 15:26; 16:14, 23; 18:12; 28:16). So after his adulterywith Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, David pled with God, “Donot cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me”(Ps. 51:11). His plea was that he might retain his role as king.

Psalm22 presents a question, not a prophetic declaration, but thepsalmist’s perception depends on the idea that God can forsakehim. The psalm is Davidic and certainly applies to the royal line andextends to Jesus. When on the cross, Jesus had been left by God tothe devices of his foes. The agonizing question and the followingdescription of affliction as well as the confidence of being heard byGod are fitting for the Davidic heir on the cross.

(1)Theprophet Nathan was consulted by David when he contemplated building atemple to house the ark (2Sam. 7). Without consulting God,Nathan encouraged David in this laudable project, suggesting that inthe prophet’s mind the project was so obviously right(acknowledging as it did God’s supreme kingship over thenation) that there was no need to ask God. However, an unexpecteddivine refusal came that same night. A divine speech, long bybiblical narrative standards (twelve verses), was required to explainthe baffling divine refusal. The problem with the project was thatthe time was not ripe (2Sam. 7:11; cf. 7:1), for David stillhad battles to fight.

Nathanreappears in biblical narrative in 2Sam. 12, sent by God torebuke David for taking Bathsheba (this confrontation is alluded toin the superscription of Ps. 51). These interventions of Nathan cameat David’s high point and low point. Nathan’s parableabout the “little ewe lamb” caused David to incriminatehimself and pronounce his own sentence. David, on his immediaterepentance, was forgiven (v.13), but the rest of his reign wasthe working out of the punishment pronounced by Nathan: “Thesword will never depart from your house” (v.10). Nathanpredicted the death of the son born from the illicit union (v.14).Later, God sent word through Nathan that a second son, Solomon, wasto be named “Jedidiah” (“loved by the Lord”)(v.25; see NIV footnote). Nathan, in collusion with Bathsheba,took Solomon’s part in the competition for the throne (1Kings1). Nathan and the priest Zadok anointed Solomon king at Gihon(1Kings 1:45). He also had a role in David’s ordering ofthe Levites (2Chron. 29:25). Nathan is the reputed author of abook of chronicles about David’s reign (1Chron. 29:29)and a history about Solomon’s (2Chron. 9:29).

Presumably,the Nathan of 1Kings 4:5 is the prophet, whose son Azariah wasin charge of Solomon’s district officers. Zabud, another son,was a priest (here this refers to a chief officer) and personaladviser (cf. Hushai’s role in 2Sam. 15:37) under Solomon.There is mention of “the house of Nathan” as stillprominent in the postexilic period (Zech. 12:12).

(2)Ason of David, born in Jerusalem (2Sam. 5:14; 1Chron. 3:5;14:4), he is in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:31). (3)Thefather of Igal, one of David’s thirty mighty warriors (2Sam.23:36). (4)AJudahite, the son of Attai and father of Zabad (1Chron. 2:36).(5)Thebrother of Joel, one of David’s mighty warriors (1Chron.11:38). (6)Oneof the leaders enlisted by Ezra to seek Levites willing to return toJerusalem (Ezra 8:16). (7)Oneof the men who were guilty of taking a foreign wife during the timeof Ezra (Ezra 10:39).

A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

OldTestament

Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).

Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of theone praying.

Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.

NewTestament

Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.

Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.

Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.

Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).

TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).

Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).

A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

OldTestament

Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).

Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of theone praying.

Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.

NewTestament

Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.

Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.

Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.

Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).

TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).

Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).

A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

OldTestament

Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).

Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of theone praying.

Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.

NewTestament

Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.

Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.

Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.

Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).

TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).

Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).

The concepts of purity and purification are largelyunfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms oftenappear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual,and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the processneeded to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or shecould participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7).These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrainactions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in theirancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene(e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medicaladvantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]).Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simplephysical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for therange of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

OldTestament

Thelaw of Moses. Accordingto Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguishbetween the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean”and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. Godrequired that his people observe purification rites when they cameinto his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teachGod’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification ritualsfunctioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num.8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaiclaw.

Twomajor sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws ofpurification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need forpurification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one ofa number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8),scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev.15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47),and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration ofimpurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditionsdiffer, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity:(1)the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural andmore or less unavoidable; (2)it was not necessarily sinful tocontract these impurities; (3)these conditions conveyedtemporary loss of ritual purity.

Althoughsexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and thecontraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they wereunavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligatedto reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests,were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore,many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged,not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed atemporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites ofpurification. These rites included washings (a man who had adischarge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed inorder to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of achild, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certainofferings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood”[12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” manwho had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to bedeclared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house wentthrough a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance ofcleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as thepurifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the bloodon [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and toconsecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

Afinal characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded;that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impuritywas especially serious and highly contagious. One could contractcorpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the sametent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone orthe grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpseimpurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Majorimpurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven daysrather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lastedonly until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals mightcontract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whetherby touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someonedefiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseasedperson or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or dischargefrom either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23,26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“untilevening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), andone was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

TheProphets and the Writings.Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and“purification” are much less common; however, at timesthey are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity isused figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical termfor “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively toillustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands,but there is no one to comfort her.... Jerusalemhas become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and inEzek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in theirown land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Theirconduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

Itwas not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for theprophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered peoplepure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’sforgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash andmake yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stopdoing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing inkey passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you,and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impuritiesand from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “theywill no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images orwith any of their offenses, for I will save them from all theirsinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Althoughthere are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are notcleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who canpromise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they havecommitted against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellionagainst me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin withBathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity andcleanse me from my sin.... Cleanse me with hyssop,and I will be clean.... Create in me a pure heart,O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element inJewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as inthe prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived inwholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeyingthe truth (1Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms ofpurity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts,you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping thosein distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Fatheraccepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largelyunfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms oftenappear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual,and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the processneeded to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or shecould participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7).These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrainactions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in theirancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene(e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medicaladvantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]).Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simplephysical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for therange of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

OldTestament

Thelaw of Moses. Accordingto Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguishbetween the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean”and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. Godrequired that his people observe purification rites when they cameinto his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teachGod’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification ritualsfunctioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num.8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaiclaw.

Twomajor sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws ofpurification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need forpurification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one ofa number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8),scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev.15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47),and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration ofimpurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditionsdiffer, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity:(1)the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural andmore or less unavoidable; (2)it was not necessarily sinful tocontract these impurities; (3)these conditions conveyedtemporary loss of ritual purity.

Althoughsexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and thecontraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they wereunavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligatedto reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests,were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore,many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged,not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed atemporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites ofpurification. These rites included washings (a man who had adischarge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed inorder to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of achild, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certainofferings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood”[12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” manwho had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to bedeclared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house wentthrough a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance ofcleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as thepurifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the bloodon [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and toconsecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

Afinal characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded;that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impuritywas especially serious and highly contagious. One could contractcorpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the sametent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone orthe grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpseimpurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Majorimpurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven daysrather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lastedonly until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals mightcontract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whetherby touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someonedefiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseasedperson or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or dischargefrom either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23,26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“untilevening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), andone was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

TheProphets and the Writings.Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and“purification” are much less common; however, at timesthey are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity isused figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical termfor “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively toillustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands,but there is no one to comfort her.... Jerusalemhas become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and inEzek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in theirown land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Theirconduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

Itwas not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for theprophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered peoplepure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’sforgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash andmake yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stopdoing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing inkey passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you,and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impuritiesand from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “theywill no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images orwith any of their offenses, for I will save them from all theirsinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Althoughthere are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are notcleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who canpromise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they havecommitted against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellionagainst me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin withBathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity andcleanse me from my sin.... Cleanse me with hyssop,and I will be clean.... Create in me a pure heart,O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element inJewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as inthe prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived inwholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeyingthe truth (1Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms ofpurity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts,you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping thosein distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Fatheraccepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

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

OldTestament

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

Messianictexts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “childis born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, MightyGod, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of“Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowedin Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipatesthe appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt.3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with theclouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory andsovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh saysto David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right handuntil I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly,the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh whileimplying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes thatcase, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spiritof God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1Sam. 16:14 acontrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” thatleaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” thattorments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God wouldnot take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spiritcan be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy(Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek.36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Sonand the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable fromone to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

NewTestament

TheNT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” oftenbecause of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appearsseveral times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9,14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which heidentifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10;and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God theFather and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Graceand peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ”(also 1Cor. 1:3; 2Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1Tim.1:2; 2Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in1Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, fromwhom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live”(see also 1Cor. 15:24; 2Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil.2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1Pet. 1:2–3;in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have beenchosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through thesanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ andsprinkled with his blood.... Praise be to the Godand Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “Godthe Father” is clear.

Biblicaltexts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for thesecond claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say asmuch, but one can take this case further. In context, John’sprologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims thathe was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1).Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, ashe declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ inJohn 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages thatidentify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, asPeter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of theliving God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They callout, “What do you want with us, Son of God? ...Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”(Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider“equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance ofGod’s glory and the exact representation of his being”(1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “imageof the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and theone by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell inhim.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great Godand Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlightsthe deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sitson the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory andpower, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and theLamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

TheNT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personalityof the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by theSpirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus isbaptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speakagainst the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’sGospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we alsosee in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18,38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the HolySpirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ(5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor andteacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’sinstructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance ofsonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). Thisperson even knows the very thoughts of God (1Cor. 2:11).Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of theFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three membersof the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, theSpirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationshipsbetween Father, Son, and Spirit

Theevidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons arecalled “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command intheir relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and theSpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of thecross to the church. This “functional subordination” ofthe Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from theanalogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son”would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though theyshare a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share acommon humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that theyrelate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22)Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by myFather” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authorityto the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season)knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About thatday or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifiesthe Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all hedoes” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please hisheavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares inJohn 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do onlywhat he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does theSon also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Sonupon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son issaid to have “offered up prayers and petitions with ferventcries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he washeard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, helearned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated bytheologians whether this functional subordination relates only to theperiod of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is aneternal subordination.

TheSpirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father andthe Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross andempower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “TheAdvocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, willteach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said toyou.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends theSpirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to youfrom the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from theFather—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveyswhat he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he willspeak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”(John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father ismine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he willmake known to you.”

TrinitarianHeresies

TheFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while beingdistinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these twopersons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement ourdeliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity willrespect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustratethem with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms ofpolytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came fromMarcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father ofJesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves uswith more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism andsubordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons ofthe Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God.One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the HolySpirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond thefunctionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that theSon and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentiallysubordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into thislatter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but notthe Creator God.

Theseearly heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of theTrinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coinedprecise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so thatGod’s “threeness” and “oneness” arepreserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the ChristianGod and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sharethe same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the HolySpirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk.hom*oiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial”(Gk. hom*oousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit.The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in sodoing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spiritwas created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea alsorejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promotedby endowing him with supernatural powers.

Eachof these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism ofIslam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claimsthat constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians willremember that tensions and paradoxes are not automaticcontradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expresslydemonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, andChristianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in thiscase. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, andquite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On thepositive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of thechurch because it affects all the others, especially the entire workof redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if heis not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as ourLord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in thatcase, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us ofwhat Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannotspeak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives usthe word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune,and sinners need him to be so.