1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
Where Is Love?
Hebrews 9:1-28
Sermon
by Lee Ann Dunlap
Several years ago, a fellow named Lionel Bart wrote a hit song, "Where Is Love," for the Broadway musical Oliver. Based on the Charles Dickens classic, Oliver Twist, the musical tells the story of an orphaned child struggling to survive the cruelties of the streets of England amidst the Industrial Age. No one seems to care, except those trying to use him for profit. "Where is he, whom I close my eyes to see?" Oliver sings. "Will I ever know the sweet ‘Hello,' that's meant for only me? Where is love?"
Few of us have ever faced the hardships of life as a street orphan, but we need not look far to see that the cruelties of Dickens' world still exist in our own. The young and the very old, the ill and the poor are still exploited and abused, forced to scrounge for daily sustenance. Orphaned or not, nearly all of us can identify with the spirit of Oliver's song — yearning for love and acceptance, yearning to belong to one someone, and to community — thirsting for God "as the deer pants for the water" (to use the psalmist's words).
We have, in fact, been created with the capacity for just such a thirst. As an infant instinctively knows to suckle its mother for life-giving milk, so, also, do human beings yearn to be near to the heart of another, and ultimately to be "near to the heart of God" (to quote another songwriter). Yet, as we look around us, and look within ourselves, we recognize that so many of us are still thirsting, and perhaps in our more desperate moments we ourselves have uttered the plea (although not so melodiously), "Where is love?" What is it that stands between us and the Creator's life-giving love that our spirits so desperately need?
For Oliver Twist and so many like him, the barrier is human ignorance and cruelty, along with the physical hardships of life that so often lie outside an individual's control. Little souls, and little souls in adult bodies, are told first by their families and then by the world that they are unwanted and unlovable, that they are ugly or stupid or bad. In turn they begin to act that way. They are told that they are inferior human beings because of the color of their skin, or their gender, or the gender of the people they choose to love. Instead of a "sweet hello" they anticipate only condemnation from the church, and from God.
For others, that barrier to God stands inside us rather than beyond us — pride, arrogance, and the guilt of our own rebellious deeds. Although religious in outer form and ritual, we dare not approach God in honest prayer, because coming near to the heart of God means we are forced to recognize our own ungodliness — our human weakness and fallibility. In our culture admitting our flaws and misdeeds makes for disaster at the hands of our competitors and political enemies.
So where is love, and how do we secure it for ourselves? Perhaps the church community first addressed by the preacher of Hebrews felt a bit like the orphaned Oliver Twist. They had earlier stood their ground amidst persecution and had faithfully supported fellow Christians who lost property and personal freedom. But they were growing weary, and the stakes were getting higher, and many were questioning whether the struggle was worth their continued efforts with no apparent end in sight. They were seeking a place of rest from the debating, the theological wrestling, and economic and physical suffering. And close at hand were those well-meaning teachers and philosophers offering easy answers and easy solutions.
Biblical scholars and historians have suggested that this easier alternate route to Easy Street was a kind of amalgamated heresy based on the pagan, gnostic (knowledge-based), and popular Jewish beliefs of their time and place. It might best be described as a kind of universalist "whatever works" religion like some of the New Age stuff floating around in today's religious neighborhood. As best these scholars can conjecture, this ancient New Age religion suggested that the path to the realm of God could be cleared of obstacles if one only possessed and practiced the secret knowledge and rituals that could appease those opposing cosmic forces that were causing the havoc.
The Old Testament story of the wandering Hebrews recalls how the earlier generation of pilgrims had struggled with this same quest to find a place "near to the heart of God." In the midst of their travels, the path to God's presence was laid out legally in the holiness code, as well as architecturally and symbolically in the tabernacle (and later the Jerusalem temple). Although the exact details and specifications have been lost in antiquity, enough remains in the Old Testament for a good artistic rendering.
In the days when Moses and the Hebrews traveled the desert the tabernacle served as a kind of divine "mobile home" in which the holy and transcendent God could travel with the chosen people, a "visual parable" to use Eugene Peterson's phrase, showing that "people just can't walk in on God." (That's his paraphrase of Hebrews 9:8, which the NRSV translates, "The way into the sanctuary was not yet opened.")
For a typical Israelite of Moses' generation to find God, he had only to enter the tabernacle, that architectural expression of the path to the divine presence. Any Hebrew feeling a need to reconnect with God would approach the tabernacle through its singular opening. No class separation here, all came to God through the same door. Immediately inside that opening the worshiper encountered the large altar where the animals were sacrificed to atone for sin. One could not gain access to the holy one of Israel without first confronting the reality of one's own sin and failures. Only after that could the other offerings be proffered or advice sought.
Physically, that was as close to God as the average Israelite dared to go. Beyond that — the holy area — was entirely the domain of the priests — the intermediaries sanctioned by God and ritually cleansed for service in God's house, kind of like divine butlers, if you will. It was in that holy area that the priests engaged in an array of religious ceremony — rites and rituals laid down to properly acknowledge God's "otherness." Among other things, this partitioned area contained the lampstand and a table with special bread to symbolize God's past favor and continuing presence with the people.
But even the designated priests went only so far. At the very center of the sanctuary was the holy of holies — and central to that was the Ark of the Covenant with the tablets of the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. At the center of that — the cherub-guarded mercy seat, where God promised Moses would find divine audience. Only once each year was this inner sanctum to be entered, and then only by the high priest. He entered twice on that day — first with a young bull to be sacrificed for the sins of the high priest and his family, and then again with a ram to be offered for the sins of the entire nation. If the high priest returned from the divine presence alive, the people saw evidence their sins were forgiven and God's favor was assured for yet another year.
All of this seems strange and archaic to our modern intellects. At best, it was a physical and symbolic representation of the spiritual quest, a tangible path to an encounter with divine mystery with appreciation for some deep spiritual truths about guilt and innocence and the need for reconciliation, not only with God but also with each other. To express it in our own liturgical tradition, "an outward and visible sign on an inward and spiritual grace."
But as the preacher of Hebrews points out, this path through the tabernacle is temporary at best. The fact that the activity is continual and the barriers remained indicates that nothing was ultimately resolved, particularly any lasting restoration of the human soul. People continued to fail and continued their need for reconciliation.
Later in Jewish history, a conquering Roman general would ride his horse into the inner sanctum of the holy of holies — to announce that he found nothing. No god resided there. Just as centuries later a Russian cosmonaut would walk in outer space and triumphantly declare that he had been to the heavens and no god resided there, either. Did that come as any surprise to believers?
Where and how do moderns strive to find God, who is known to be aloof and mysterious? How do we seek to resolve the brokenness and alienation of our inner selves and to confront the breaches of our human relationships? Our suggested paths to healing often lie with doctors and psychologists. Some of our solutions are legal — both civil and criminal; some are technological, and some military. But are these any more effective or permanent than the path to the holy of holies through the tabernacle? We build bigger jails, but the violence continues, develop more sophisticated weapons and broker more peace treaties, but one war erupts even before another is concluded. We develop a cure for one dreaded disease only to hear news of a new one. Are the paths we have forged toward peace and wholeness any more effective than the one leading through the temple?
Back to Oliver's question, "Where is he, whom I close my eyes to see? Will I ever know the sweet ‘Hello' that's meant for only me?" The preacher insists that the path to God does not ultimately lie in any physical route, nor in any secret knowledge available on the worldwideweb. It does not lie in slaying one's enemies in the name of God, nor in denouncing others as eternally damned in order to solidify one's own creed. To find love, to encounter God, and receive assurance of divine forgiveness one must confront Jesus. It is Jesus Christ, and Christ alone, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Through his total submission to the human condition, with all its accompanying limitations and sufferings, Jesus offered to God the only sacrifice of lasting impact. Rather than offering the innocent blood of another in place of himself in atonement for sin (as in the Hebrew ritual), he chose to offer himself, his own innocent blood, in place of the guilty humanity. In his death upon the cross and in his Easter resurrection the preacher assures us that Jesus ascended beyond the physical realm and entered the real holy of holies — the very presence of Almighty God.
On our spiritual journey, our quest to connect with what is truly real and ultimately meaningful, how do we seek the path that leads to the heart of God? The path to God has been cleared for us, not by rituals or incantations, and not by our continual efforts to impress God with our sacrifices and gifts and good behavior. Sacrificial offerings won't get us there, even in our official church envelopes. Succeeding at all our life's grand ambitions won't either. Neither will intense psychotherapy or a degree in theology. Continual religious activity and successful church growth statistics won't pave the way, either, and neither will your preacher. He or she is only a fellow pilgrim. None of this will pave the way to God, because through Christ, God has already paved the way for us, and so we do not despair:
There is a place of quiet rest, near to the heart of God.
A place where sin cannot molest, near to the heart of God.
O Jesus, blest Redeemer, sent from the heart of God
Hold us, who wait before thee, near to the heart of God.
— Cleland B. McAfee, 1903 "Near To The Heart Of God"
CSS Publishing Company, Inc., Sermons on the Second Reading: Sermons for Sundays after Pentecost (Last Third), Travel Tips for Fellow Pilgrims: Lessons Learned along the Way, by Lee Ann Dunlap
In order to contrast Christ’s sacrifice with worship under the old covenant, the old system must be properly explained. In 9:1–5, the preacher briefly introduces how the earthly sanctuary was set up for worship. Then in 9:…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
The tabernacle and its ritual frame the author’s discussion in 9:1–10. He continues his demonstration of the ineffectuality of the Levitical institutions to deal with sin and of his contention that forgiveness can be found only in Christ. Returning to the argument of 8:1–5, the author describes the earthly sanctuary and its furniture (9:1–5). He describes the tabernacle, not the similar plan of the temple, perhaps because of his readership’s fascination with the wilderness period of Israel’s history. The altar of incense appears to have been located in the Holy Place (Exod. 30:6; Lev. 16:12, 18), not the Most Holy Place. The wording here recalls that of 1Kings 6:22 and perhaps is intended to suggest the intimate connection between this altar and the ark of the covenant in the priestly ritual. The activity of the priests and of the high priest on the Day of Atonement is described in 9:6–10 but now in the present tense (contra the NIV), furnishing an argument that Hebrews was written before the destruction of the temple and the cessation of its ritual in AD 70 and serving as a reminder that Jewish Christians were still participating without prejudice in that ritual (Acts 21:20–26). The fact that the divinely appointed order so severely restricted access to the Most Holy Place was an enacted lesson that the true, decisive ransom, of which the Levitical sacrifices were but a figure, had not yet been paid and that those sacrifices could not remove guilt. Under discussion is the single question of what sacrifice is the basis of salvation—the Levitical sacrifice or the sacrifice of Christ. The author ought not to be understood as suggesting that believers in the former era did not have direct access to God and full forgiveness through Christ, a notion against which the whole of Scripture rises in protest (e.g., Ps. 32:1–11; 103:1–22; Mic. 7:18–19; Rom. 4:1–8) and which is particularly impossible to reconcile with the perspective of the author of Hebrews (11:4–38). Again, he is belittling his readers’ view of the Levitical rites, separated as they were from Christ and from living faith, as mere externalities and, what is more, only temporary.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
We are now at the beginning of a lengthy section (9:1–10:18) that many regard as the heart of the epistle’s argument. In this section the author draws out parallels and contrasts between the old levitical ritual and the priestly work of Christ in considerable detail. Much of the argumentation up to this point has had precisely this goal in view. Indeed, the argument of this major section has already been anticipated (e.g., 7:23–27).
The first task the author undertakes is to describe the physical setting of the tabernacle (vv. 1–5) and the sacrificial ritual associated with it (vv. 6–10). He does this by drawing upon the descriptions provided in the books of Exodus and Leviticus. Only after providing this historical picture does he turn to the corresponding and final work of Christ.
9:1 In order to comprehend the significance of the work of Christ, it is essential to understand that which pointed to him. The first (NIV rightly adds covenant) was ordained by God as far as both regulations and place were concerned. The author turns his attention first to the latter, an (lit., “the”) earthly sanctuary.
9:2 The author’s guided tour begins with the first room (lit., “tent”), traditionally called the Holy Place. In this part of the sanctuary were the lampstand (the seven-branched menorah) and the table, which had upon it the consecrated bread (lit., “the presentation of the loaves”), better known as “the bread of the Presence.” Directions for the construction of the tabernacle are given in Exodus 26. For the table and the lampstand, see Exodus 25:23–40.
9:3–5 More space is given by our author to describing the “Holy of Holies” (translated the Most Holy Place by NIV) because of its importance as the place of atonement. It lay behind the second curtain (Exod. 26:33), a curtain meant to restrict access to the innermost chamber that could be entered only once a year (see v. 7). A minor problem exists with regard to the first item said to be in the Holy of Holies, the golden altar of incense. According to the account in Exodus 30:1–6 (cf. Exod. 40:26f.) this altar was placed “before” or “in front of” (so NIV) the curtain, and thus it was located in the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place. Yet so vital was the burning of incense on the Day of Atonement (cf. “so that he will not die,” Lev. 16:13; cf. Num. 16:40) that the author automatically associates the altar of incense with the Holy of Holies. It is after all the Day of Atonement that is his real concern as we see from verses 6–10.
The second item in the Holy of Holies is the gold-covered ark of the covenant (see Exod. 25:10–16, 21). In this container were three special objects that recalled the experience of Israel at Sinai in the wilderness: the gold jar containing the manna (see Exod. 16:13–33), Aaron’s rod that had miraculously budded (see Num. 17:8–10) and the stone tablets of the covenant; see Deut. 10:3–5; 1 Kings 8:9). Above the ark (lit., “it”) were cherubim of the Glory (lit., “cherubim of glory”). By introducing the definite article and capitalizing the noun in the Glory NIV legitimately interprets this as a reference to God (cf. NEB: “God’s glory”) rather than simply to the glory of the cherubim themselves (cf. JB: “glorious cherubs”). The Glory almost certainly refers to the shekinah (i.e., “dwelling”) glory that hovered over the ark of the covenant (cf. Lev. 16:2; Exod. 40:34f.) symbolizing the presence of God. Although of course we cannot know what these cherubim looked like, it is well to speak of winged “beings” or “creatures” so as not to exclude the possibility of a human likeness, as ascribed to the cherubim in the rabbinic tradition, for example. With their wings, these beings overshadowed the atonement cover (see Exod. 25:18–20). This is NIV’s appropriate translation of a single technical term (hilastērion) indicating the lid of the ark (as it does regularly in the LXX). This cover to the ark was the place where the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrificed bull and then of the goat on the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16:14f.). In this way the word came to signify the taking away of sin (as indeed an alternate rendering of the consonants of the Hebrew word kpr allows, that is, not only “to cover,” but “to wipe away”) and hence came to be translated “mercy seat” (Exod. 26:34, RSV). In Romans 3:25, the only other occurrence of this noun in the NT, Jesus is described as an “expiation” (RSV) or “propitiation” (KJV, NASB) for our sins, or as NIV puts it, “a sacrifice of atonement.”
It is apparent that the author draws his knowledge of the furniture of the tabernacle from a literary source, almost certainly the Greek translation of the OT (LXX). This is the more certain since the Holy of Holies in the second temple could hardly have contained the enumerated items, which must have been destroyed or lost in connection with the destruction of the temple in 587 B.C. (Upon entering the temple, Pompey encountered the furniture of the temple, but since no mention is made of the contents of the Holy of Holies, we may presume it was empty, Josephus War 1.152f.; Ant. 14.71f.). The author contents himself with this brief description of the physical setting of the levitical ritual, wherein he points to his competence in these matters, and now turns to the more important matter of the accomplishment of atonement in that setting. It is proper to note that here and in what follows the author avoids the kind of irresponsible allegorical exegesis of these details that is found in certain contemporary or near-contemporary writers such as Philo and Josephus (see Montefiore).
9:6–7 When everything had been arranged like this refers to what has been described in the preceding five verses—that is, it is in that setting that the priests do their work. The daily duties of ordinary priests are first in view. They entered (lit., “enter”; present tenses are consistently used in these verses) regularly into the outer room (lit., “first tent”) in order to accomplish their priestly duties (see Num. 18:2–6). These involved the burning of incense, morning and evening; the maintenance of the lamps of the lampstand; and the removal of the old and placement of the new loaves upon the table every Sabbath. The contrasting clause contains three major points of difference: only the high priest can perform the vital work of atonement; he does so by entering the inner room (lit., “the second tent”), and only once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:2–15; Exod. 30:10). He is never without the blood prescribed by the law, which he offered for himself (the contrast here has already been made in 5:3 and 7:27) and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The technical phrase “sins of ignorance” alludes to the fact that only unintentional sinning could be atoned for (see Lev. 4:1, 13, 22, 27; 5:15, 17–19), not that done “with a high hand” (see Num. 15:30; Deut. 17:12).
9:8 The author now draws a lesson from this, that is, from the physical setup and the continuing cultic practice. As the Holy Spirit was showing (lit., “makes clear”), through the Scriptures from which the information in the preceding verses has been gleaned, the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed (lit., “made visible”). That is, the situation under the old covenant, with its elaborate protection of the Holy of Holies, is admittedly one that excludes the people of God from his presence, and hence the fulfillment of God’s promises remains to be experienced. The continued existence, therefore, of the first tabernacle, which together with the curtain before the Holy of Holies barred the way to the very presence of God, showed the futility of the old covenant and at the same time pointed inescapably to the future. That future has now come for the author and his readers.
9:9–10 The continuing necessity of an “outer tent,” itself symptomatic of the problem of the old covenant, serves as a illustration (lit., “parable”) for the present time. By this the author means, as he will begin to show, beginning in verse 11, that the significance of Christ’s work, as now known and proclaimed, is that the way has been made clear for us to draw near to God (cf. 10:19–22). Just as light is shed upon the work of Christ by its anticipation in the old covenant, so a knowledge of the fulfillment brought by Christ illuminates the significance of the tabernacle and the levitical sacrifices. By its very nature the old covenant points to what can now be seen to be its fulfillment. According to the old situation, the “regulations for worship” (mentioned in 9:1) mandated various sacrificial offerings that were by their nature unable to bring the worshiper to the intended goal of full salvation. Were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper is to be understood as “unable to bring the true, inner person to the intended goal of full salvation.” The nagging, unconvinced conscience of the worshiper in this circ*mstance is evidence of this failure of the old system. The reason for the inability of the arrangements under the old covenant is that they had to do only with external (lit., “fleshly”) regulations, involving food and drink and various ceremonial washings (lit., “ablutions”). Thus F. F. Bruce writes, “The really effective barrier to a man’s free access to God is an inward and not a material one; it exists in his conscience” (p. 196). It is finally to be stressed that these regulations are only temporary, applying (lit., “being imposed”) only until the time of the new order. It is clear from what he has already written that our author regards that new order as already existing. The time of fulfillment has already come in and through the work of Christ (see comment on 1:2). If this is true, then the whole levitical system and the Mosaic legislation upon which it rests has come to an end. This conclusion is indeed inescapable given the conclusions drawn in 8:13. The author’s argument here is reminiscent of Paul’s perspective in Colossians 2:16–17: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” The old covenant stipulations are displaced when the new covenant with its new order comes into existence. This analysis is borne out in the verses that immediately follow the present passage. Christ fulfills the anticipations of the old covenant and brings his people to the realization of the salvation God has intended from the beginning. The new era, the time of reformation and fulfillment, has arrived.
Additional Notes
9:1 The past tenses of this and the following four verses do not imply that the situation here described no longer exists. They are due instead to the fact that the historical origin of the tabernacle, and its successor the temple, is being set forth. Confirmation of this is found in the use of the present tenses in vv. 6–10 (see especially v. 9). The regulations (dikaiōmata), which become the center of attention in vv. 6–10, are referred to as “external” (or “fleshly”) and temporary in v. 10. The word underlying worship (latreia) refers specifically to service in the temple cultus (cf. the use of the cognate verb in 8:5 and 9:9). The Greek word for sanctuary is to hagion (“the holy place”). The adjective underlying earthly is kosmikon, by which is meant of the “created” order. (Barclay translates “a this-worldly one.”) The intended contrast, of course, is to the “heavenly” sanctuary already mentioned (8:5; cf. 9:11, 24).
9:2 Whereas in Exod. 26:33 one tent is divided into two compartments, our author speaks apparently of two tents (cf. “first” here and in vv. 6 and 8; and “second” or “inner” in v. 7); NIV translates, in keeping with Exodus, first room and in vv. 6–7 “inner room” and “outer room.” It is unlikely, however, that the writer means us to understand the first as the earthly and the second as the heavenly, as did some in Hellenistic Judaism, since for him the entire Mosaic setting represents the earthly copy of a greater reality. He may mean nothing more than “outer” and “inner” in the way that NIV understands the words. Elsewhere the author refers to the entire structure as a single “tabernacle” (8:5; 9:21). For “tabernacle” (i.e., “tent”) see note on 8:2. The Greek word underlying was set up (kataskeuazō) is the same word translated “build” in 3:3f. For the Holy Place (hagia) and the Most Holy Place, “the Holy of Holies” (hagia hagiōn) of v. 3, the author uses the literal translation of the underlying Hebrew words for the tabernacle found in the LXX (where, however, the definite article is regularly included). For the Most Holy Place, see also 9:12, 25; 10:19; 13:11 (with the definite article); and 9:24 (without the article). The consecrated bread, sometimes called “the showbread,” refers to the twelve newly baked loaves or cakes placed upon the table in the Holy Place every Sabbath (see Lev. 24:5–9). On this and the following verses, see the extensive discussion in Strack-Billerbeck, vol. 3, pp. 704–41.
9:3–5 The second curtain separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place; a “first curtain” separated the Holy Place from the tabernacle court. The word for curtain (katapetasma) occurs in Hebrews only here and in 6:19 and 10:20. Although the Greek word used here for altar (thymiatērion) was not used to refer to the incense altar in the LXX, it is so used by contemporary authorities such as Philo and Josephus, who also explicitly note (together with the Babylonian Talmud) that in the second temple the incense altar was in the Holy Place with the lampstand and the table. The reference to Aaron’s rod may be seen to have special importance, given the argument of chap. 7. The budding rod demonstrated the sole legitimacy of Aaron and the tribe of Levi in priestly service at the altar (cf. Num. 18:7). But that uniqueness has now been displaced—indeed, canceled—by the high priest of the order of Melchizedek. Technically the jar with the manna and the rod of Aaron were put alongside the ark rather than in it (cf. 1 Kings 8:9). The tablets of the covenant are appropriately designated, for they were given in the context of the covenant. Faithfulness to the covenant involved keeping the commandments. The only other NT occurrence of the word tablets (plax) is in 2 Cor. 3:3 where, as here, the adjective stone is included (cf. Exod. 32:16). On cherubim see E. Lohse, TDNT, vol. 9, pp. 438f. Although the noun “mercy seat” (hilastērion) occurs only here and in Rom. 3:25 in the NT, the cognate verb “expiate” or “propitiate” (hilaskomai) occurs in 2:17 and in Luke 18:13. The related noun hilasmos is found in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. On these words see H.-G. Link and C. Brown, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 148–66.
9:6–7 The “first” or outer room is that introduced in v. 2. The Greek word behind ministry (latreia) is the same word that is translated “worship” in v. 1, referring in both places to the priestly service. The cognate verb (latreuō) has already been encountered in 8:5 (“service”) and occurs again in vv. 9 and 14. The “second” or inner room, although not explicitly mentioned earlier, is implied in v. 3. The word once is very important to the author in describing the work of Christ. The high priestly work of the old covenant has its “once” too, but it refers to once a year, unlike the definitive “once-and-for-all” character of Christ’s work as high priest (see vv. 12, 20–28).
This is the first of many references to the blood of sacrifices in this and the remaining chapters of the book. The sanctity of life, and hence of blood, together with the necessity of sacrifice, indicates the costliness of atonement (cf. 9:22; Lev. 17:11). The mention of blood in the context of offering for atonement always presupposes the death of the sacrificial victim. The central importance of the blood of Christ first comes into view in vv. 12 and 14 below (although it is implied in 2:9, 14, and 17). For the significance of blood in the Bible, see J. Behm, TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 172–77.
The Greek word underlying offered (prospherō) is very frequently used by our author. See note under its first occurrence in 5:1. The description of the work of the high priest, in which he offers first for his own sin and then for the people, follows closely the account in Lev. 16:11–15. The word for sins … committed in ignorance (agnoēmata, lit., “ignorances”) is used only here in the NT. The present tenses that begin in v. 6 do not demonstrate that the cultus was in operation in our author’s day, although they are consistent with such a possibility (so, e.g., Hughes). Nevertheless, when the temple ritual is in view the present tense is often used simply as reflecting the normative character of the law. Thus many writers who wrote after the destruction of the temple continued to use the present tense in describing the temple ritual (e.g., Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, the rabbinic literature).
9:8 In two other places the Holy Spirit is explicitly referred to as the speaker in OT material (3:7; 10:15). The Greek underlying the Most Holy Place is not “Holy of Holies” (hagia hagiōn), as it is in 9:2, but simply “the Holy Place” (hagia). The context, with its reference to the first tabernacle, suggests that the innermost chamber, the Holy of Holies, is meant. In several references to follow (vv. 12, 24, and 25; 10:19; 13:11), the single word is similarly used to refer to the Holy of Holies (as is the case frequently in the LXX, e.g., Lev. 16). It is also to be noted, however, that a different exegesis of “first tabernacle” is possible. Thus some (e.g., Bruce) argue that “first tabernacle” here refers to the entire sanctuary of the old or “first” covenant (so NIV, NEB) and that this is more appropriately what the author regards as the “illustration” referred to in the next verse. Yet the passage makes good sense if we regard the author’s use of “first tabernacle” as consistent and understand here the Holy Place, the outer compartment of the sanctuary (so RSV, JB, NASB). The “first tabernacle” understood in this sense itself implies the lack of access to the Holy of Holies and hence is representative of the whole sacrificial system. See W. Michaelis, TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 375ff.
9:9–10 The antecedent of the relative clause “which is a parable” (this is an illustration) is not totally clear. The most natural reading understands the antecedent to be “the first tabernacle.” This is a suitable antecedent and yields good sense. It is, however, also possible to understand the totality of vv. 6–8 as the antecedent (and to explain the feminine gender of the relative pronoun by attraction to parabolē). The present time is clearly to be understood as the day of the author and readers. And yet this by itself does not necessarily mean or imply that the sacrificial ritual was still in progress at the time of the writing of this epistle. In this case it is the past that has a message for the present. Gifts and sacrifices being offered is (in NIV and in the Greek) language that occurs in nearly verbatim agreement in two other passages: 5:1 and 8:3. Clear (lit., “complete,” “make perfect”) translates a favorite verb of our author (teleioō). See note on 2:10. The word conscience (syneidēsis) is important for our author, occurring five times (see 9:14; 10:2, 22; 13:18). It reflects the inner or true person and makes judgments upon the ultimate well-being or lack of well-being of the person. See C. Spicq, “Conscience” in EBT, pp. 131–34; G. S. Selby, “The Meaning and Function of suneidēsis in Hebrews 9 and 10,” RestQ 28 (1985–86), pp. 145–54. The worshiper, the one who does this priestly service, very probably includes in addition to the priests those ordinary believers who accomplish this service through the agency of the priests. Food and drink refer to the stipulations of the dietary legislation (e.g., Lev. 11); ceremonial washings to various purifying rites (e.g., Lev. 14; 15). External (“of flesh”) regulations stand in deliberate contrast to the root problem of the inner being as represented by conscience. The word for new order (diorthōsis) occurs only here in the NT, and not at all in the LXX. On these verses, see J. Swetnam, “On the Imagery and Significance of Hebrews 9, 9–10,” CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 155–73. On the significance of chap. 9 as a whole, see N. H. Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” NTS 27 (1981), pp. 198–210.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Donald A. Hagner, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Aaron was Moses’ older brother and his close associate during the days when God used both of them to establish his people Israel as a nation. Aaron’s particular importance came when God selected him to be the first high priest of Israel.
Aaron plays a supportive role in the Exodus account of the plagues and the departure from Egypt. He was at Moses’ side. As previously arranged, Aaron was the spokesperson, acting as a prophet to Moses, who was “like God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1).
The event of greatest significance involving Aaron in the wilderness was his appointment as high priest. The divine mandate for his installation is recorded in Exod. 28. Aaron did not fare well on the one occasion when he acted independently from Moses. While Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the two tablets of the law from the hand of God, Aaron gave in to the people’s request to make a calf idol out of golden earrings that they gave him.
In spite of Aaron’s sin, God did not remove him from his priestly responsibilities (thanks to the prayers of Moses [Deut. 9:20]), the height of which was to preside over the annual Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). The incident of the golden calf was not the only occasion when Aaron tried God’s patience. According to Num. 12, Aaron and his sister, Miriam, contested Moses’ leadership. Using his marriage to a Cush*te woman as a pretext, Moses’ siblings asserted their equality. God, however, put them in their place, affirming Moses’ primacy.
Other tribal leaders questioned Aaron’s priestly leadership, according to Num. 17. Moses told all the tribal leaders to place their walking staffs along with Aaron’s before God at the tent of testimony. God showed his favor toward Aaron by causing his staff to bud.
Both Moses and Aaron forfeited their right to enter the land of promise when they usurped the Lord’s authority as they brought water from the rock in the wilderness (Num. 20:1 13). Sick and tired of the people’s complaining, Moses wrongly ascribed the ability to make water come from the rock to himself and Aaron, and rather than speaking to the rock, he struck it twice. For this, God told them that they would die in the wilderness. Aaron’s death is reported soon after this occasion (Num. 20:22–27).
In the NT, the most significant use of Aaron is in comparison to Jesus Christ, the ultimate high priest. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews argues that Jesus far surpassed the priestly authority of Aaron by connecting his priesthood to Melchizedek, a mysterious non-Israelite priest who blesses God and Abram in Gen. 14 (see Heb. 7:1–14).
Aaron’s rod is his wooden walking stick, which had a significant role in the accounts of the plagues of Egypt. In Moses and Aaron’s first confrontation with Pharaoh, Aaron threw his rod to the ground, and it turned into a snake. Although the Egyptian magicians could mimic this act, Aaron’s snake swallowed the snakes produced by their rods, thus showing the superiority of Aaron’s God over their false gods (Exod. 7:813). Aaron used his rod by either extending it or striking the ground in order to initiate other plagues as well. Interestingly, Aaron’s rod was featured in the early plagues, whereas Moses used his rod in some of the later and more powerful plagues as well as in the crossing of the Red Sea, perhaps showing Moses’ prominence (9:23 [hail], 10:13 [locusts], 14:16 [Red Sea]).
The rod was not a magical wand but rather a symbol of the presence of God. It is best to understand the rod as related to a tree that stands for God’s presence. It is a portable tree.
Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed of various materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Some altars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place. They could symbolize either God’s presence and protection or false worship that would lead to God’s judgment.
God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all the inhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark” (Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14 16). Apart from the Genesis flood narrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Bible where this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coating of pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people from drowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht), but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder, sail, or any navigational aid. The NT refers to Noah’s construction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1Pet. 3:20) and his entering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).
A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, that represented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark, constructed in wood, measured forty-five inches long, twenty-seven inches wide, and twenty-seven inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported by means of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The most important aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attached to the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, which was the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, the ark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation between God and Israel.
The English word “atonement” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”; thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In some ways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliation than our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness” as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity is achieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongs done. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achieved this “onement” between God and sinful humanity.
The need for atonement comes from the separation that has come about between God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there is the understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatures on account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effect reconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’s holiness and justice.
The mercy seat, or “atonement cover” (NIV, NLT), was the cover on the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle and the place of atonement for Israel (Exod. 25:21). It was made of pure gold, forty-five inches long, and twenty-seven inches wide (25:17). Above the mercy seat were two cherubim made of gold, one at each end (25:1820). There, God spoke with Moses (Num. 7:89). Upon entering the holiest place, the priest was required to burn incense over the mercy seat; otherwise, he would face judgment and die (Lev. 16:13). On the Day of Atonement the blood of the bull and the goat was sprinkled on the mercy seat.
In the NT, the Greek term hilastērion is used for the mercy seat itself (Heb. 9:5) and for the “sacrifice of atonement” or “propitiation” (Rom. 3:25), the blood of which was dripped onto the mercy seat. In Rom. 3:25 Christ himself is identified as the hilastērion, the sacrifice of atonement for our sins.
The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:34), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.
The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).
Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).
The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).
During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).
Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).
The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.
Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils.
To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:12; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.
Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).
A container for burning incense. In ancient Israel censers were bronze or gold vessels used to carry live coals to light fires for tabernacle and temple worship. Powdered incense was burned upon the live coals. Their use (or misuse) sometimes signified holy or unholy behavior. Thus, on the Day of Atonement the high priest preserved his life by obediently burning a censer of incense in the holy of holies (Lev. 16:12). Nadab and Abihu died after they offered incense in an unauthorized manner (10:17). Similarly, Korah and his followers died for usurping the priestly task of burning incense (Num. 16). Censers crafted for Solomon’s temple were later carried off by the Babylonians who conquered Jerusalem.
“Cherubim” (Heb. kerubim) is the plural form of “cherub” (Heb. kerub), a winged heavenly creature, apparently different from (or a certain type of) an angel. Scholars are uncertain as to the original meaning of the word, but it is probably related to a word that means either “gatekeeper” or “intercessor.” Cherubim appear as attendants around the throne of God or in some cases as gatekeepers, guarding the way to the presence of God.
God stationed cherubim to guard the entrance to the garden of Eden after he expelled Adam and Eve from the garden (Gen. 3:24). In this sense, the garden of Eden was a prototype of the temple, where the presence of God could be encountered. Later, in accordance with God’s instructions, golden cherubim were constructed and placed on either side of the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant, the place where God declared, “I will meet with you [Moses]” (Exod. 25:1822).
The decorations of the tabernacle and the later Solomonic temple incorporated artwork depicting representations of cherubim (Exod. 26:1, 31; 1Kings 6:23–29; 7:29, 36; 8:6–7; 2Chron. 3:14). Isaiah 37:16 describes God as sitting between the wings of the cherubim, and Ps. 18:10 describes him as flying on the wings of the cherubim.
The prophet Ezekiel gives an extensive description of “four living creatures” flying around the throne of God (1:4–21). Later, the prophet identifies these same creatures but refers to them as cherubim (10:1–22). See also Ark of the Covenant.
An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:12; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).
A pact/compact or an agreement (Heb. berit). The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.”
The covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships.
Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship.
The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:89. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land.
Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally, the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath, judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1Cor. 11:25; 2Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2Cor. 3:6).
A cloth hanging used to construct temporary dwelling places, to function as an entrance, or to screen private places. The tabernacle was constructed from ten curtains woven from expensively dyed yarns, hung with blue cord, and fastened with gold clasps (Exod. 26:16). The surrounding tent was formed from eleven goatskin curtains (26:7–13). A curtain hung in front of the holy place, preventing entry except by the high priest on certain days, and then only after animal sacrifices were made and the sanctuary was sprinkled with blood (Lev. 16:2). At the time of Jesus’ death, this curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), signifying a new freedom of access to God, which Jesus achieved by his blood (Heb. 10:19–20). When the earth is spoken of metaphorically as God’s dwelling place, the heavens are described as the curtains that encompass it (Isa. 40:22).
The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).
In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).
The Bible contains many references to minerals and metals. Minerals can encompass a wide array of topics, thus the focus here is on valuable minerals such as ornamental stones as well as precious and useful metals.
Copper. References to copper within the Bible are few. Several passages discuss the basic origins of copper, such as the gathering of ore or the smelting process (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 24:11). Several NT passages acknowledge the presence of minted copper coins as currency (Matt. 10:9; Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2). Pure copper, however, was hard to use, although it could be combined with tin to make the alloy bronze.
Bronze. The first biblical reference to bronze is found in Gen. 4:22, in which we are told that Tubal-Cain forged tools out of bronze and iron. Next, bronze is mentioned in its use in the tabernacle built in the desert. Among the bronze items included were the many bronze clasps and bases for the tent construction (Exod. 26:11, 37; 27:1011, 17–19). The altar and all its utensils were made of, or overlaid with, bronze (27:1–8). God also instructed Moses to make a bronze basin for washing (30:18). Moses also made a snake out of bronze and placed it on top of his staff when the Israelites were struck with an abundance of venomous snakes (Num. 21:9). Samson was bound with shackles of bronze (Judg. 16:21), and Goliath wore armor and carried weapons of bronze (1Sam. 17:5–6). Solomon used an extensive amount of bronze in his building of the temple (2Kings 25:16), and there was bronze in the statue that Daniel dreamed of (Dan. 2:32, 35). Many of the prophets used bronze as a way to discuss something that was to be strong or strengthened by God (Isa. 45:2; Jer. 1:18; Ezek. 40:3).
Iron and steel. One of the earliest references to iron in Scripture is its use by the Canaanites to make chariots (Josh. 17:16, 18). This would have been an early use of the metal in the Iron AgeI period (1200–1000 BC). Also, Goliath’s spear, which was as big as a weaver’s rod, is said to have had a head made of iron (1Sam. 17:7). Elisha’s miracle of making a borrowed ax head float (2Kings 6:6) shows the continued value of the metal. In his latter days, David amassed iron among the goods to give Solomon to use in building the temple (1Chron. 22:14; 29:2); Solomon later used these materials with the help of Huram-Abi (2Chron. 2:13–14). Ezekiel discusses the economic value of iron in the context of trading (Ezek. 27:12, 19), and Daniel uses it as a metaphor for discussing strength (Dan. 2:40–41). The NT recognizes the strength of iron when discussing Christ’s iron scepter (Rev. 2:27; 19:15).
Tin. Tin was initially used mainly to produce the copper alloy bronze. Tin was not used in its pure form until well into the Roman period, and even then seldom by itself. The sources of tin in the ancient world are currently debated. The tin from large deposits in Tarshish in southern Spain (Ezek. 27:12) was available through Phoenician traders. Tin is also found in large deposits in Anatolia, but it is currently unknown whether these deposits had been discovered and used during biblical times. A third option is modern-day Afghanistan. Archaeologists have discovered in modern Turkey the remains of a wrecked ship, dated to around 1350 BC, that was carrying ten tons of copper ingots and about one ton of tin ingots. These ingots possibly originated in the area of modern-day Afghanistan and were bound for the Mediterranean trade routes. Tin is mentioned only four times in Scripture, always within a list of other metals (Num. 31:22; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 27:12).
Lead. Lead was used early in human history, but its applications were few. It would have been mined with copper and silver ore and then extracted as a by-product. The Romans used it for various implements, most notably wine vessels. It is referenced nine times within Scripture, either in a list or in reference to its weight. The only two times it is referenced as an object is when Job mentions a lead writing implement (Job 19:24), and when Zechariah has the vision of a woman sitting in the basket with a lead cover (Zech. 5:7, 8).
Gold and silver. Sought after for much of human history, gold and silver have been worked by humans for their ornamental value. The practical uses of these metals within the biblical setting were constrained mainly to their economic and ornamental value. Gold and silver jewelry were used as a form of payment and were minted into coins during the Greco-Roman era. Gold objects are relatively scarce in archaeological finds, mainly because most gold items would have been part of a large treasury carried off as tribute or plunder. Silver appears in the archaeological record more frequently; a remarkable hoard of silver in lump form was found at Eshtemoa (see 1Sam. 30:26–28). This silver has been dated to the time of the kingdom of Judah, after the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen. The silver in raw lump form was most likely used as a monetary payment, even though it had not yet been minted into coins.
Gold in the ancient world came largely from Egypt and northern Africa. The Bible mentions Havilah as a land of gold (Gen. 2:11), as well as Ophir (1Kings 9:28), but the exact location of both places is unknown. Silver was mined in southern Spain, along with other metals, and brought to the area through sea trading. The Athenians of the Classical period were also known for their vast silver-mining operations.
Silver and gold are mentioned repeatedly in the OT in reference to their uses in trading and their economic value. Most notably, the Israelites asked their Egyptian neighbors to give them gold and silver items just before they left Egypt (Exod. 3:22). The tabernacle was highly ornamented with these two metals, as was the temple built by Solomon. It is said that Solomon made the nation so wealthy that silver was considered as plentiful as stone (1Kings 10:27). Perhaps the most notorious articles of silver within Scripture are those paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus (Matt. 26:15).
Precious stones. Stones of various origins were used in and around Palestine. The Bible makes few references to their use. Like gold and silver, they were used mainly for their ornamental value. Their scarcity made them highly prized. One notable exception is turquoise. The Egyptian pharaohs were fascinated with turquoise, and they mined extensively for it on the Sinai Peninsula. The remains of several turquoise mines have been found with Canaanite markings, indicating the presence of Canaanite slaves working the Egyptian mines. There was also a line of forts along the northern edge of the Egyptian Empire, used presumably to protect the pharaohs’ turquoise interests. Precious stones were also found in Syria, where Phoenician traders would have been able to bring them from other parts of the known world.
Exodus 28:17–21 describes twelve stones set in the breastpiece worn by the Israelite high priest. Twelve stones likewise appear in the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20). Ezekiel uses nine of these same twelve stones to discuss the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:13).
The Bible uses the blanket term “precious stones” to denote a hoard of riches, such as that owned by Solomon (1Kings 10:10).
A priest is a minister of sacred things who represents God to the people and the people to God. The OT identifies priests of Yahweh and priests of other gods and idols. The only pagan priest that the NT mentions is the priest of Zeus from Lystra who wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, whom the crowd mistook for deities (Acts 14:13). All other NT references build upon OT teaching about priests of Yahweh.
Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:78; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).
In NT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders of the Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, were portrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said to have come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assigned by Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priests underscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the role they played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continued after the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of the apostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar had been healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed, interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about charges of blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a follower of Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix (24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him before Festus (25:1–3).
Hebrews uniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OT priesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but their sacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, the faithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that never needed repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesus also surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore, since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, not just priests, could draw near to God.
The NT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking the concept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring it to the church (1Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflecting the general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritual sacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his works of salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In the NT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office in the church is never expressly mentioned.
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 main structure of the tabernacle and later the temple consisted of two rooms, the holy place and the holy of holies, the latter otherwise known as the “Most Holy Place” (Exod. 26:3335; 1Kings 6:19–21). The ark of the covenant was placed in this room, which was entered by the high priest once a year on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16).
One of two major sections in Israel’s tabernacle, the holy place housed several sacred objects, including the lampstand, the table of consecrated bread, and the altar of incense (Exod. 25:2339; 30:1–10; Heb. 9:2–3). A special curtain in the holy place separated this chamber from the most holy place, which contained the ark of the covenant, thereby protecting the latter from defilement (Exod. 26:33).
A compound of aromatic spices closely related to the daily life of Israel. It became synonymous with “frankincense” at a later time. Aromatic spices were used in Israel for cosmetics (Prov. 7:17; Song 5:5) and for medical (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8) purposes but occupied a special place in Israelite worship when used as incense. Incense was professionally compounded (Exod. 30:3435) and was offered on the golden altar by the high priest twice a day (Exod. 30:7–8; cf. Luke 1:8–11) and on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12–13; cf. 10:1–2). Prayers offered with the smoke of the incense guaranteed acceptance by God (Deut. 33:10; cf. Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18; Ezek. 20:41). In Ps. 141:2, prayers are said to ascend to God like incense, providing a background to the book of Revelation, where incense represents the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4).
Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:3139; 1Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).
The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2Sam. 21:17; 1Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).
Miraculous, heavenly bread that God rained down for the Israelites to eat during their wilderness wanderings (Exod. 16:135). The word manna likely comes from the Hebrew phrase man hu’ (“What is it?”), reflecting the Israelites’ puzzled response to God’s gracious provision (Exod. 16:15). It resulted from a layer of dew that fell on the camp at night and evaporated in the morning, leaving fine flakes resembling frost on the ground (Exod. 16:14; Num. 11:9). Manna was white like coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey and olive oil (Exod. 16:31; Num. 11:8). It could be crushed into a paste and then either boiled or baked (Num. 11:8).
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).
In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]). These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe the whole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describe either a special ministry performed by an official functionary (1Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). In the early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchies but on services performed (1Tim. 3:113).
The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1Pet. 5:3).
Jesus’ ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NT writers describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39; Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministry of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).
The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).
Although ministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were those with special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart for particular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apart Apollos and Paul for special ministries (1Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7). The church called on special functionaries to carry out specific ministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individuals to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry the relief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2Cor. 8:19, 23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the elders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching and preaching and healing for the whole church.
All the ministries of the church, whether performed by believers in general or by some specially appointed functionary, were based on gifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1Tim. 1:12; 1Pet. 4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’s relationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians are equal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paul identifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ calls certain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. The ones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the church but rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph. 4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or her because those gifts were given for ministry to others (1Cor. 4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results in leadership.
It becomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others for ministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turn minister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2Tim. 2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is to build up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ (Rom. 15:15–17; 1Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1Thess. 2:19–20).
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).
A wooden walking stick that could have various functions. In ancient times, people did considerable amounts of walking. The ground in Israel is very uneven and rocky, making a walking stick a useful item (Gen. 32:10; Matt. 10:10). It is likely that walking sticks were customized so that they could serve as identification (Gen. 38:25).
Besides their utilitarian purpose, a rod or staff also came to denote an office and/or one’s authority. Military figures carried staffs that indicated their status (Judg. 5:14), and Gen. 49:10 predicts that the ruler’s staff will not depart from the tribe of Judah. Shepherds also carried a staff (Ps. 23:4; Mic. 7:14).
Sometimes a staff signified the presence of God with an individual. It was symbolic of the tree from which it was made, and a tree sometimes symbolically represented God. For this reason, some divine signs are associated with a raised staff. This was the case of Aaron’s staff. The Red Sea split after Moses extended his rod, and the Israelites had the better of the Amalekites on the battlefield as long as Moses kept the rod above his head. See also Aaron’s Rod.
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.
Rocks and stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12; Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as a sign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2Sam. 18:17), as a marker or memorial (Gen. 31:4650), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). A single rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen. 28:22; 35:14, 20; 1Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones (Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also be used to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb, such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus (Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).
Stone was used as a construction material, particularly for the temple (1Kings 5:15–18; 1Chron. 2:22; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15; Mark 13:1–2). Stone was used in a building’s foundation and for the cornerstone or capstone (1Kings 5:17; Jer. 51:26; Isa. 28:16), as well as for the walls (Hab. 2:11). Psalm 118:22 refers metaphorically to the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone. In the NT, this is interpreted as referring to Jesus (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Pet. 2:7; cf. Eph. 2:20). Stone could also function as a writing material (Josh. 8:32), such as the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9–11; 1Kings 8:9; cf. 2Cor. 3:3, 7). Stone was also carved, although at Sinai the Israelites are instructed not to use cut or “dressed” stones when constructing an altar (Exod. 20:25; cf. Josh. 8:31). The phrase “carved stone” refers specifically to idols, since stone was one material used for crafting false gods (Lev. 26:1; cf. Deut. 4:28; 29:17; 2Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; Rev. 9:20); the term “stone” itself can therefore be used to refer to an idol, especially in the phrase “wood and stone” (Jer. 3:9; Ezek. 20:32).
Stones were used as a weapon or instrument of destruction, whether thrown by hand (Num. 35:17, 23) or flung with a sling (Judg. 20:16; 1Sam. 17:40, 49–50; Prov. 26:8). The verb “to stone” refers to the throwing of stones at an individual, which typically functioned as an official manner of execution (Exod. 19:13; 21:28–29; Deut. 21:20–21; 1Kings 21:13–15; John 8:5; Acts 7:58–59), although it was at times the action of an angry crowd (Exod. 17:4; 1Kings 12:18; cf. John 8:59).
The phrases “precious stones” and “costly stones” refer to gems (2Sam. 12:30; Esther 1:6; Isa. 54:12; 1Cor. 3:12). Gems were used as a display of wealth or honor (1Kings 10:2, 10–11; 2Chron. 32:27; Ezek. 27:22) and for decoration (1Chron. 3:6; Rev. 17:4; 18:16). The two stones on the high priest’s ephod and the twelve precious stones on his breastpiece represented the twelve tribes (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–12, 17–21), a symbolism echoed in the twelve types of precious stones adorning the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20).
Rocks and stones are used often in metaphors or similes (e.g., hard as a rock, still as a stone). They can represent something that is common (1Kings 10:27; Job 5:23; Matt. 3:9; 4:3), strong (Job 6:12), hard (Job 38:30; 41:24), heavy (Exod. 15:5; Prov. 27:3), motionless (Exod. 15:16), or immovable (Zech. 12:3). A “heart of stone” describes coldheartedness (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). A “stumbling stone,” which is literally a stone that causes one to stumble (Isa. 8:14), is used in the NT as a metaphor for an obstacle to faith in Jesus (Rom. 9:32–33; 1Pet. 2:8).
“Tabernacle” in Hebrew (mishkan) is a general word for a tent or a dwelling. In the Pentateuch particularly, “tabernacle” most often refers to the special dwelling place of God among the Hebrew people during their wandering through the wilderness. The tabernacle was the abode of God’s glory before the building of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. The detailed description of the tabernacle and its construction composes more than one-third of the book of Exodus (chaps. 2540), signifying its theological importance to the life of God’s people before the forming of the nation-state of Israel.
The detailed command of God to build the tabernacle in Exod. 25–30 is part of a larger dramatic narrative. While Moses is on the mountain of God receiving the instructions for the tabernacle, the Hebrews have embarked on a festival of revelry and worship, offering sacrifices to a golden calf, constructed during Moses’ absence (32:1–19). Moses is furious and smashes the tablets of the Ten Commandments on the ground, and yet he returns to the mountain to intercede for the people. God punishes the people with a plague but does not destroy or abandon them completely, for “the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness” (34:6) renews his covenant with the people, and Moses again returns from the mountain with the Ten Commandments (34:27–29). Exodus 35–40 then recounts the careful obedience with which the people adhere to God’s command to build the tabernacle, assiduously following the instructions given in Exod. 25–30.
The description of the tabernacle given in the text is of an ornate sanctuary within a tent structure situated at the very center of Israel’s camp. The tabernacle thus took the place of the tent of meeting described in Exod. 33:7–11, which was pitched outside the camp. However, the terms “tabernacle” and “tent of meeting” appear to be used synonymously in the Pentateuch after the construction of the tabernacle was completed. According to the text, the dimensions of the tabernacle were as follows: 150 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 7.5 feet high (Exod. 27:18). Around the exterior of the tabernacle was an outer courtyard where an altar for burnt offerings stood at the entrance to the tent of meeting, as well as a basin filled with water for the ritual purifications of the priests. Within the outer enclosure of the tabernacle stood a lampstand, an incense altar, and a table where the bread of the Presence was placed. Within the temple was a second enclosure, the holy of holies, where the ark of the covenant was placed beneath the wings of the golden cherubim.
In the harsh desert of the Middle East, a veil is useful protection from the sun and windblown sand. While Hebrew women tend to appear without veils (Gen. 12:14; 24:16; 29:10; 1Sam. 1:12), dressing in veils in public may have been considered appropriate for women of certain status (Song 4:1, 3; 5:7; 6:7), so that forced removal becomes an act of shaming (Isa. 3:1819; 47:2; Ezek. 13:21).
However, in the Bible, veils also serve as more than protection from the elements. Rebekah puts on a veil in deference before encountering her future husband, Isaac (Gen. 24:65). Tamar veiled herself in order to deceive Judah, her father-in-law, into sleeping with her (Gen. 38:14–19). And judgment is said to await the women who “make veils of various lengths for their heads in order to ensnare people” (Ezek. 13:18, 21).
Perhaps the most celebrated of veils in the Bible is the veil (masweh) worn by Moses over his face in order to keep its glow, caused by his encounter with God, from affecting the people (Exod. 34:33, 35). A veil also hung at the entrance of the tabernacle (Exod. 26:36, 37), while another significant veil hung in the tabernacle and the temple, separating the holy place from the most holy place (2Chron. 3:14), into which the high priest entered but once a year (on Yom Kippur) for the atonement of sin (Exod. 30:10; Heb. 9:3). This veil was torn in two when Jesus died (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45), symbolizing open access into the presence of God (Heb. 10:20).
God is figuratively described as being veiled by clouds that keep us from his sight (Job 22:14), while divine judgment can be characterized as the “veil over their hearts” (Lam. 3:65).
In the NT, Paul requires women to veil their heads, particularly in worship, while veiling of the head by men is considered inappropriate (1Cor. 11:6–7; cf. Isa. 3:17–18). He also compares Moses’ veiled and fading glory to the surpassing and unfading glory of the ministry of the Spirit (2Cor. 3:7–14) and says of the spiritually blind that “a veil covers their hearts,” blinding them to God’s grace that comes through Christ (3:15). The gospel is veiled to those that are perishing (4:3); however, this veil is removed by the Spirit when one turns to Christ (3:16–18).
Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.
The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.
A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).
God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:118) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).
Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).
Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.
Direct Matches
Aaron’srod (or staff) is his wooden walking stick, which had a significantrole in the accounts of the plagues of Egypt. In Moses and Aaron’sfirst confrontation with Pharaoh, Aaron threw his rod to the ground,and it turned into a snake. Egypt was a land filled with poisonoussnakes, so it is not surprising that the snake was a symbol of powerand threat. Although the Egyptian magicians could mimic this act,Aaron’s snake swallowed the snakes produced by their rods, thusshowing the superiority of Aaron’s God over their false gods(Exod. 7:8–13). Aaron used his rod by either extending it orstriking the ground in order to initiate other plagues as well(turning the Nile into blood [Exod. 7:19], frogs [8:5], and gnats[8:16]). Interestingly, Aaron’s rod was featured in the earlyplagues, whereas Moses used his rod in some of the later and morepowerful plagues as well as in the crossing of the Red Sea, perhapsshowing Moses’ prominence (9:23 [hail], 10:13 [locusts], 14:16[Red Sea]).
Therod was not a magical wand but rather a symbol of the presence ofGod. It is best to understand the rod as related to a tree thatstands for God’s presence. It is a portable tree. That the rodis a portable tree and signifies God’s presence is clearly seenin Num. 17. In the face of dissension from other tribal leaders whodisputed Aaron’s leadership, God directed Moses to place a rodfrom every tribe before him in the tent of testimony. Aaron’salone budded into an almond tree, signifying that God was with him.His rod was then placed in front of the testimony, according to Heb.9:4, in the Ark of the Covenant. It may also have been used by Mosesto strike the rock and produce water (Exod. 17:5; Num. 20:9).
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.
A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, thatrepresented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb.’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 incheswide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported bymeans of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The mostimportant aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attachedto the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, whichwas the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, theark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation betweenGod and Israel.
Ina few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collectionbox (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10;2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers toJoseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scripturesmention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association withthe Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark ofthe Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God ofIsrael,” and the “ark of God.”
TheFunction and Locations of the Ark
Theark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used forworship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy notethat it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or twotablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is oftenreferred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since theHebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the commonHebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and thedesignations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant”(Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod.27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark alsocontained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb.9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location ofthe ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering andworship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be calledthe “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifyingthe ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in thewilderness and indicating where they should rest.
Inthe book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1;6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dryground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to beswept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between theark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associatedwith the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that thepresence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecratedLevitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by threelayers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6,15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away.In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, andUzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark tosteady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10).Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at theGilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.
Thefunction of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy soughtdivine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a warsymbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21).This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Easternreligious concepts and practices that associated the presence of agod with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and successin battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthronedbetween the cherubim” links God’s roles as king andwarrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool”(1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. OtherCanaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembledgold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet,signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron.28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” andthe psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’sfootstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked tothe formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of[God]” as the centralized place of worship.
TheArk of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eliuntil it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in theirterritory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of theark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’spresence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ falsepresumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military successand reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Followinga plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returnedand remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).
Eventually,King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcingthe political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remainedin a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple(2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the latemonarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assetsseized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark wasnever replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, andJeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). Theark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple(Ezek. 40–48).
Thebook of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence andpurpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenlyholy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercyseat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark.Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant beinglocated in the heavens.
TheArk and the Holiness of God
TheArk of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessaryseparation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those whoapproach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing fromimpurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationshipwith God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparablylinked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to bepresent among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation.The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with theglory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibilitythrough the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tentin which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence orrevelation is not limited to a specific location.
TheNT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. Godis both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation forsin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonementaccomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’ssufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replacedthe yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgivenessof God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ andsalvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross.The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement andreconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence whileat the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence.Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ,when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to livewith and among them eternally.
The mercy seat, or “atonement cover” (NIV, NLT),was the cover on the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle and theplace of atonement for Israel (Exod. 25:21). It was made of puregold, forty-five inches long, and twenty-seven inches wide (25:17).Above the mercy seat were two cherubim made of gold, one at each end(25:18–20). There, God spoke with Moses (Num. 7:89). Uponentering the holiest place, the priest was required to burn incenseover the mercy seat; otherwise, he would face judgment and die (Lev.16:13). On the Day of Atonement the blood of the bull and the goatwas sprinkled on the mercy seat.
Inthe NT, the Greek term hilastērion is used for the mercy seatit*elf (Heb. 9:5) and for the “sacrifice of atonement” or“propitiation” (Rom. 3:25), the blood of which wasdripped onto the mercy seat. In Rom. 3:25 Christ himself isidentified as the hilastērion, the sacrifice of atonement forour sins.
Twelve loaves of unleavened bread that were to be oncontinuous display (replaced every Sabbath) in the holy place of thesanctuary (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:8). The loaves were to be placed intwo rows of six on the table of pure gold constructed for the holyplace. The bread symbolized the covenant between God and his people,with a specific emphasis probably being placed upon his provision andsustenance. The name “bread of the Presence” (lit.,“bread of the face”) arises from the close proximity inwhich they were placed to God’s presence in the sanctuary.Because of their holy nature, only priests were allowed to consumethem (Lev. 24:5–9; 1 Sam. 21:1–6; Matt. 12:4 pars.;Heb. 9:2).
The KJV translation of certain Greek constructions referringto “flesh.” Most contemporary English versions prefer “ofthe flesh,” “earthly,” “worldly,” andeven “sinful.” Occasionally “carnal” simplyrefers to physical or material things (e.g., Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor.9:11) or to certain aspects of the OT that have been fulfilled inChrist (Heb. 7:16; 9:10). The notion occurs most frequently in thewritings of Paul, who makes special use of “carnal” tocontrast it with “spiritual.” In Rom. 8:1–11 Paulpresents the carnal or worldly person as “Spirit-less”and therefore “Christ-less.” By definition, a Christianis spiritual and cannot be carnal (“live according to thesinful nature” [8:4]). That is, those who have Christnecessarily have the Holy Spirit, and therefore they do not followthe pattern of the world, but rather walk by the Spirit and producespiritual fruit (Gal. 5:16–26).
Inother contexts the same apostle can describe Christians as “carnal”(KJV) or “worldly” (NIV). “Brothers, I could notaddress you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants inChrist. . . . For since there is jealousy andquarreling among you, are you not worldly?” (1 Cor.3:1–3). Here Paul rebukes the Corinthian Christians for theirimmaturity. The Spirit has sanctified them (6:11), but in theirsinful pride and divisiveness they appear to belong to the world, theevil age of sin and death. They must “grow up” so thattheir conduct befits the Spirit, who now dwells in them.
AlthoughPaul’s two uses of “carnal” seem opposed to eachother, he is simply calling his Corinthian readers to liveconsistently with the truths that he expounded in Romans. Christiansare fundamentally not carnal, but spiritual. They should thereforeact like it in a life marked by faith, hope, and especially love(1 Cor. 13). These are the true signs that someone has the HolySpirit, even though the Christian may lapse into attitudes andbehaviors inconsistent with this new identity in Christ.
Carnelian–Aprecious red stone. It is one of the jewels in the high priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:17; 39:10), as well as in the “covering”(similar to the high priest’s breastpiece) for the king ofTyre, who is portrayed as a priest serving in the temple garden ofEden (Ezek. 28:13 NRSV). In the book of Revelation, God, who sits onthe throne, has the appearance of carnelian (4:2–3), andcarnelian is one of the precious stones in the walls of the newJerusalem (21:20).
One of two major sections in Israel’s tabernacle, theholy place housed several sacred objects, including the lampstand,the table of consecrated bread, and the altar of incense (Exod.25:23–39; 30:1–10; Heb. 9:2–3). A special curtainin the holy place separated this chamber from the most holy place,which contained the ark of the covenant, thereby protecting thelatter from defilement (Exod. 26:33).
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 mercy seat, or “atonement cover” (NIV, NLT),was the cover on the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle and theplace of atonement for Israel (Exod. 25:21). It was made of puregold, forty-five inches long, and twenty-seven inches wide (25:17).Above the mercy seat were two cherubim made of gold, one at each end(25:18–20). There, God spoke with Moses (Num. 7:89). Uponentering the holiest place, the priest was required to burn incenseover the mercy seat; otherwise, he would face judgment and die (Lev.16:13). On the Day of Atonement the blood of the bull and the goatwas sprinkled on the mercy seat.
Inthe NT, the Greek term hilastērion is used for the mercy seatit*elf (Heb. 9:5) and for the “sacrifice of atonement” or“propitiation” (Rom. 3:25), the blood of which wasdripped onto the mercy seat. In Rom. 3:25 Christ himself isidentified as the hilastērion, the sacrifice of atonement forour sins.
In the OT, overshadowing is associated with covering orprotection. The directions for constructing the ark of the covenantinclude two gold cherubim, whose wings are to extend up andovershadow it in a posture of protection (Exod. 25:20; 37:9; 1Kings8:7). Tree branches are also described as overshadowing (Job 40:22;Ezek. 31:3).
Inthe NT, overshadowing is primarily employed figuratively and isassociated with the presence of God. The Synoptic accounts of Jesus’transfiguration incorporate the presence of an overshadowing cloudfrom which the voice of God emerges, identifying Jesus as his Son andurging Peter, James, and John to listen to him (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7;Luke 9:34). The most intriguing overshadowing, however, occurs whenGabriel tells Mary that she will be overshadowed by the power of theMost High and thereby conceive Jesus, who will be the heir to theeternal throne of David (Luke 1:35). Two additional NT occurrencesare more literal (Acts 5:15; Heb. 9:5).
The translation in several Bible versions (e.g., KJV, NASB,ESV) of the Greek word diorthōsis,which appears in the NT only in Heb. 9:10, where it describes eitherthe “new order” (NIV) in which Christ’s work setsaside the old legal regulations for approaching God or the process ofestablishing it.
Twelve loaves of unleavened bread that were to be oncontinuous display (replaced every Sabbath) in the holy place of thesanctuary (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:8). The loaves were to be placed intwo rows of six on the table of pure gold constructed for the holyplace. The bread symbolized the covenant between God and his people,with a specific emphasis probably being placed upon his provision andsustenance. The name “bread of the Presence” (lit.,“bread of the face”) arises from the close proximity inwhich they were placed to God’s presence in the sanctuary.Because of their holy nature, only priests were allowed to consumethem (Lev. 24:5–9; 1 Sam. 21:1–6; Matt. 12:4 pars.;Heb. 9:2).
Twelve loaves of unleavened bread that were to be oncontinuous display (replaced every Sabbath) in the holy place of thesanctuary (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:8). The loaves were to be placed intwo rows of six on the table of pure gold constructed for the holyplace. The bread symbolized the covenant between God and his people,with a specific emphasis probably being placed upon his provision andsustenance. The name “bread of the Presence” (lit.,“bread of the face”) arises from the close proximity inwhich they were placed to God’s presence in the sanctuary.Because of their holy nature, only priests were allowed to consumethem (Lev. 24:5–9; 1 Sam. 21:1–6; Matt. 12:4 pars.;Heb. 9:2).
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.”
From the Latin word tabula (“board”), “table”first denoted any flat surface, but especially one of wood or stoneused for writing (Exod. 20:2–17). The Ten Commandments wereoriginally inscribed upon two tables of stone. Eventually “table”in this sense was replaced by “tablet” (see Tablet).
Tableswere used for eating, working, and displaying objects: domestictables (Judg. 1:7; 1Sam. 20:29), temple tables of Yahweh(2Chron. 4:8; Ezek. 40:39–43) or of heathen gods (Isa.65:11), the “Lord’s table” (Mal. 1:7, 12), and thetable for the bread of the Presence in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:23–30;1Kings 7:48; Heb. 9:2).
Tablesfound in the ancient Near East usually stood no more than eighteeninches high. Most were made of wood (2Kings 4:10), but thewealthy had tables of ornate stone. It was a great honor to beinvited to eat at or be given food from the king’s table(2Sam. 9:7, 10–13; 1Kings 2:7; 4:27; Dan. 1:5). Thecustom of the rich reclining on couches around a low table (Amos 6:4;cf. 3:12) became commonplace in NT times. Although dining at a tablewas customary (Luke 22:21; Acts 6:2), to eat under the table was fordogs and the despised (Judg. 1:7; Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke16:21). Money changers used tables as stands where money wasexchanged (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15).
Figuratively,“table” was used to represent the meal on which it wasserved. In the ancient Near East, eating with others expressedintimate fellowship and trust, yet Jesus shared table fellowship withJudas (Luke 22:21). At the Lord’s Table (i.e., Communion,Eucharist), Jesus is the host, who invites us to remember him as weeat (1Cor. 10:21; 11:23–26). The imagery of a banquettable of thanksgiving is used to depict God’s provision for hispeople (Pss. 23:5; 78:19).
Tablets as rigid flat sheets (plate, pad, or slab) made ofstone, clay, wood, and perhaps bronze, gold, and lead are mentionedin the Bible. The Sumerians produced written documents and primers onclay tablets as early as 2500 BC. Three meanings can be applied:(1)the stone tablets, and their replacements, on which Godwrote the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Mount Sinai (Exod.24:12; 34:1–4, 27–29; Deut. 10:1–5; Heb. 9:4);(2)ordinary writing tablets made of clay or wood (Ezek. 4:1;Luke 1:63); (3)figuratively, a tablet of the heart, on whichGod’s law is written (Prov. 3:3; 7:3; Jer. 17:1; 2Cor.3:3).
In the harsh desert of the Middle East, a veil is usefulprotection from the sun and windblown sand. While Hebrew women tendto appear without veils (Gen. 12:14; 24:16; 29:10; 1Sam. 1:12),dressing in veils in public may have been considered appropriate forwomen of certain status (Song 4:1, 3; 5:7; 6:7), so that forcedremoval becomes an act of shaming (Isa. 3:18–19; 47:2; Ezek.13:21).
However,in the Bible, veils also serve as more than protection from theelements. Rebekah puts on a veil in deference before encountering herfuture husband, Isaac (Gen. 24:65). Tamar veiled herself in order todeceive Judah, her father-in-law, into sleeping with her (Gen.38:14–19). And judgment is said to await the women who “makeveils of various lengths for their heads in order to ensnare people”(Ezek. 13:18, 21).
Perhapsthe most celebrated of veils in the Bible is the veil (masweh) wornby Moses over his face in order to keep its glow, caused by hisencounter with God, from affecting the people (Exod. 34:33, 35). Aveil also hung at the entrance of the tabernacle (Exod. 26:36, 37),while another significant veil hung in the tabernacle and the temple,separating the holy place from the most holy place (2Chron.3:14), into which the high priest entered but once a year (on YomKippur) for the atonement of sin (Exod. 30:10; Heb. 9:3). This veilwas torn in two when Jesus died (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke23:45), symbolizing open access into the presence of God (Heb.10:20).
Godis figuratively described as being veiled by clouds that keep us fromhis sight (Job 22:14), while divine judgment can be characterized asthe “veil over their hearts” (Lam. 3:65).
Inthe NT, Paul requires women to veil their heads, particularly inworship, while veiling of the head by men is considered inappropriate(1Cor. 11:6–7; cf. Isa. 3:17–18). He also comparesMoses’ veiled and fading glory to the surpassing and unfadingglory of the ministry of the Spirit (2Cor. 3:7–14) andsays of the spiritually blind that “a veil covers theirhearts,” blinding them to God’s grace that comes throughChrist (3:15). The gospel is veiled to those that are perishing(4:3); however, this veil is removed by the Spirit when one turns toChrist (3:16–18).
Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments.One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and thechurch were formed.
Terminology
Ourunderstanding of worship is informed by the terms, practices,exhortations, and warnings of Scripture. The worship vocabulary inboth Testaments provides insight into the personal dispositions andposture associated with worship focused on the person of God. Thefirst set of biblical terms concerns the posture of the worshiper.The Hebrew terminology communicates the idea of bowing down andfalling prostrate before the sovereign and worthy God (Ps. 95:6;1Chron. 29:20). NT words bear a similar idea of humbleacknowledgment of God’s authority with a reverent prostrateposition (Matt. 28:9; Rev. 5:14).
Thesecond set of worship terms concerns service. In the OT, the worshipof God includes the idea of serving with a view to bringing honor tohim (Exod. 3:12; Mal. 3:14, 18). In the NT, worship bears the nuanceof serving in the sense of carrying out religious duties (Heb.12:28). This set of terminology has a priestly connotation to it. TheOT priests and the NT believers (1Pet. 2:5) serve God withtheir individual lives and their routines of life as acceptableofferings.
Thefinal set of terms describes the attitude or disposition of worship.This word group includes terms such as “fear,” “awe,”and “dread,” which initially seem out of place in thecontext of worship. However, the terminology serves to inculcate anattitude of genuine respect. Yahweh is the awesome God, who is to befeared (Exod. 3:6; 15:11). Israel is to love and trust who God is andwhat God says in promise or in warning. The fear that one is to havefor God involves a respect for him, a reverence for his divine worth(Col. 3:22; Rev. 11:18).
Godas the Object of Worship
Theworship terminology sets the focus of worship. The living God is thesole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that hischildren find in him. The nature of worship is not about servantentertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgmentof God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.
Agenuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about ahumble response that affects one’s posture, generates works ofservice, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect.Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God isworshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps.90:1; 1Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is Godalone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, theself-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). Thepsalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good,loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).
Godis worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creativework of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focusin worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is thecompanion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive workof God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) andin the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).
Worshipis also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character.It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him(Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will becharacterized by humble submission to and worship of the King ofkings (1Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4).The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’sroyal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).
Finally,God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with thenation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize thevaried aspects of God’s character and his relationship withIsrael. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is tobe sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2Kings 17:35, 38; cf.Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character ofGod are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostratethemselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obedientlyserve.
TheForm of Worship
Althoughthe form of worship looks different in each Testament, the essentialelements of worship are constant. In the OT, the priests primarilyled the worship of God. In addition, the duties of the king (Deut.17:18–20) and of the prophet (18:14–22) had worshipimplications and responsibilities. Ideally, these threeadministrators were to work together to ensure a healthy quality ofcovenant life for the nation. Worship in both Testaments has bothcorporate and individual aspects.
OTworship was organized around sacred places such as designatedlocations (Gen. 3:8; 12:7), the tabernacle (Exod. 29:42), and thetemple (1Kings 8; cf. Rev. 21–22). In addition, therewere sacred times in the calendar of Israel for celebration of theappointed feasts (Lev. 23). The three main feasts in Israel’scalendar are Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16;cf. Exod. 34:23). The sacred actions of worship for the nationinvolved burnt offerings, meal or tribute offerings, peace offerings,sin offerings, and guilt offerings (Lev. 1–5).
Theregulation and routine of OT worship never were intended to be merelydutiful. The routine of worship was to manifest a love for God andfor the covenant community (Deut. 6:1–5; Mal. 2:10). Theprophets often challenged Israel to have a heart for God and at timescalled upon them to consider the emptiness of their worship routine(Isa. 1:11). The heart of worship was nurtured in psalms of praiseand lament and in the call to remember God (Pss. 42; 77:11).
Theform of NT worship is not distinguished with the same externals as inthe OT. However, similar core beliefs underlie the form and practiceof NT worship. The distinguishing feature in this new era is thefinal and sufficient work of Christ (Heb. 9–10). As withprevious revelation, worship is not anthropocentric; it is joyfullyChristocentric, based on the gospel (1Cor. 15:1–5).Christ and his work replace the OT temple. Jesus is the greatertemple that has come (Matt. 12:6). Sacrifice is no longer limited toany particular geographic location, but instead involves the offeringof oneself (Rom. 12:1–2) along with the presentation ofspiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1Pet. 2:4–5). NTworship is regulated by the Spirit and truth (John 4:20–24).This type of worship is distinguished by the word of God, the Spirit,preaching, prayer, Spirit-filled service, and mutual edification. NTworship also includes the regular celebration of the ordinances ofbaptism and the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42–47) within thecontext of the local church.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Hebrews 9:1-10
is mentioned in the definition.
A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, thatrepresented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb.’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 incheswide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported bymeans of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The mostimportant aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attachedto the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, whichwas the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, theark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation betweenGod and Israel.
Ina few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collectionbox (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10;2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers toJoseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scripturesmention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association withthe Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark ofthe Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God ofIsrael,” and the “ark of God.”
TheFunction and Locations of the Ark
Theark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used forworship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy notethat it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or twotablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is oftenreferred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since theHebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the commonHebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and thedesignations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant”(Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod.27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark alsocontained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb.9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location ofthe ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering andworship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be calledthe “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifyingthe ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in thewilderness and indicating where they should rest.
Inthe book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1;6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dryground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to beswept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between theark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associatedwith the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that thepresence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecratedLevitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by threelayers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6,15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away.In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, andUzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark tosteady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10).Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at theGilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.
Thefunction of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy soughtdivine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a warsymbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21).This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Easternreligious concepts and practices that associated the presence of agod with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and successin battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthronedbetween the cherubim” links God’s roles as king andwarrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool”(1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. OtherCanaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembledgold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet,signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron.28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” andthe psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’sfootstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked tothe formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of[God]” as the centralized place of worship.
TheArk of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eliuntil it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in theirterritory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of theark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’spresence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ falsepresumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military successand reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Followinga plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returnedand remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).
Eventually,King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcingthe political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remainedin a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple(2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the latemonarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assetsseized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark wasnever replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, andJeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). Theark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple(Ezek. 40–48).
Thebook of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence andpurpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenlyholy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercyseat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark.Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant beinglocated in the heavens.
TheArk and the Holiness of God
TheArk of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessaryseparation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those whoapproach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing fromimpurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationshipwith God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparablylinked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to bepresent among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation.The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with theglory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibilitythrough the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tentin which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence orrevelation is not limited to a specific location.
TheNT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. Godis both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation forsin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonementaccomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’ssufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replacedthe yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgivenessof God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ andsalvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross.The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement andreconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence whileat the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence.Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ,when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to livewith and among them eternally.
A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, thatrepresented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb.’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 incheswide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported bymeans of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The mostimportant aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attachedto the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, whichwas the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, theark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation betweenGod and Israel.
Ina few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collectionbox (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10;2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers toJoseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scripturesmention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association withthe Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark ofthe Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God ofIsrael,” and the “ark of God.”
TheFunction and Locations of the Ark
Theark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used forworship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy notethat it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or twotablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is oftenreferred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since theHebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the commonHebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and thedesignations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant”(Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod.27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark alsocontained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb.9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location ofthe ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering andworship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be calledthe “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifyingthe ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in thewilderness and indicating where they should rest.
Inthe book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1;6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dryground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to beswept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between theark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associatedwith the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that thepresence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecratedLevitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by threelayers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6,15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away.In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, andUzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark tosteady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10).Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at theGilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.
Thefunction of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy soughtdivine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a warsymbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21).This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Easternreligious concepts and practices that associated the presence of agod with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and successin battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthronedbetween the cherubim” links God’s roles as king andwarrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool”(1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. OtherCanaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembledgold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet,signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron.28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” andthe psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’sfootstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked tothe formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of[God]” as the centralized place of worship.
TheArk of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eliuntil it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in theirterritory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of theark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’spresence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ falsepresumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military successand reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Followinga plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returnedand remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).
Eventually,King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcingthe political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remainedin a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple(2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the latemonarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assetsseized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark wasnever replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, andJeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). Theark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple(Ezek. 40–48).
Thebook of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence andpurpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenlyholy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercyseat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark.Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant beinglocated in the heavens.
TheArk and the Holiness of God
TheArk of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessaryseparation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those whoapproach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing fromimpurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationshipwith God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparablylinked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to bepresent among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation.The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with theglory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibilitythrough the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tentin which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence orrevelation is not limited to a specific location.
TheNT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. Godis both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation forsin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonementaccomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’ssufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replacedthe yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgivenessof God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ andsalvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross.The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement andreconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence whileat the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence.Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ,when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to livewith and among them eternally.
The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), on the tenth day of theseventh month, was regarded as the most solemn festival of theIsraelite calendar (Lev. 16; 23:27–28; 25:9). The word“atonement” refers to the averting of the wrath of Godthat, unless dealt with, would fall on a sinful people.
Asa special “sabbath” on which no work was to be done (Lev.16:31; 23:28), the day was a reminder of God’s rest after hiscreative work (Gen. 2:2–3). The Israelites were to denythemselves (presumably by fasting and sexual abstinence) and togather in sacred assembly on this day (Lev. 16:29, 31; 23:27).
Thehigh priest performed certain rituals for the purification ofhimself, the tabernacle or temple (representing a renewed cosmos),and the people. He was to be clothed in linen garments (Lev. 16:4),not the more regal vestments of Exod. 28, perhaps signifying hisadmission to the company of attendants on God’s heavenly throne(cf. Ezek. 9:2–3; Dan. 10:5; Rev. 15:6).
Therituals of the day included the sacrifice of a young bull as a sinoffering and a ram as a burnt offering. A unique feature of theritual was the selection of two goats. One was to be slaughtered as asin offering, while the other was “for Azazel,” anobscure term traditionally rendered “as a scapegoat.” Thesacrifice of the one goat and, after the transferal of guilt throughthe laying on of the priest’s hands, the expulsion of thesecond appear to be a twofold way of speaking of the cleansing of theIsraelite community.
Thecentral element of the Day of Atonement is the entry of the highpriest beyond the curtain into the most holy place of the sanctuary,where rested the ark of the covenant, the symbol of God’spresence. The focus is on the covering of the ark, or “mercyseat” (kapporet, a word related to the word for “atonement”),elsewhere depicted as a footstool for God’s imagined throneabove the cherubim that flanked it (1Chron. 28:2; Ps. 99:1;Heb. 9:5). Screened from view by the smoke of incense, the priestsprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on and in front of the mercyseat. The altar was likewise sprinkled with the sacrificial blood.
Hebrews9:7–14 sees the work of Christ as fulfilling what was typifiedin the ritual of the Day of Atonement, securing for us eternalpurification from sin through his own blood. See also Festivals.
“Expiation” refers to the atonement of sin andthe removal of guilt, while “propitiation” refers to theappeasem*nt or satisfaction of wrath. Both ideas are present in theone Greek word hilasmos (and its cognates) used in the LXX and theNT. It is difficult to translate hilasmos into English using onecorresponding word, so two words, “expiation” and“propitiation,” are often used. This is problematicbecause neither term precisely captures the nuances of the Greekword. The problem persists because, as noted above, “expiation”and “propitiation” have different meanings in English.Because no single English word conveys the full sense of hilasmos,“expiation” and “propitiation” areconveniently combined in the NIV’s “sacrifice ofatonement” or “atoning sacrifice” (Rom. 3:25;1John 2:2; 4:10).
GreekBackground
Inclassical Greek, hilasmos referred to a sacrifice that would somehowavert a god’s wrath. When a worshiper sinned against a god andviolated the god’s holiness, the worshiper paid the properamount, through some kind of sacrifice, so that the god’s wrathwas then averted. It was a means of turning the god from anger to afavorable attitude, and it functioned by giving the god something(via sacrifice) that compensated for the offense. This sacrifice wasintended not as atonement for the worshiper’s sin but rather toappease the wrath of the god. The worshiper was the subject whooffered the sacrifice to the god as the object in an effort toappease the god’s wrath.
OldTestament
TheOT shares this Greek usage to a degree but also expands it to includethe more familiar biblical notion of expiation or atonement. The LXXuses hilasmos to convey the ideas of expiation as well aspropitiation. The word group associated with hilasmos is used indifferent contexts throughout the Bible, so context must determinethe meaning in each case. A prominent use occurs in Lev. 25:9, whereit refers to the Day of Atonement. Here hilasmos involves the removalof guilt effected by a sacrifice. A similar use is found in Num. 5:8,where hilasmos is used in connection with the ram with which peoplemake atonement for their sins. Ezekiel 44:27 uses the same term whenreferring to the sin offering that a priest must make for his ownsins upon entrance into the holy place. Each of these examples useshilasmos to translate the biblical concept of expiation: theatonement of sin and the removal of guilt. The unholy worshiper whosins against God is made holy once again by offering a sacrifice toatone for his or her sin.
Hilasmosalso conveys forgiveness. Forgiveness is closely connected withatonement. The LXX uses a related term hilastērion twenty-eighttimes to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of thecovenant over which God appeared on the Day of Atonement and on whichsacrificial blood was poured. The mercy seat was where both atonementand forgiveness were found. The term is used in Heb. 9:5 to refer tothe same mercy seat or “atonement cover” (NIV). Hereagain, mercy and forgiveness are linked to the idea of atonement.Psalm 130:4 (129:4 LXX) also uses hilasmos to convey the connectionbetween atonement and forgiveness: “But with you there isforgiveness/atonement [hilasmos].”
Insome cases, hilasmos bears the sense of propitiation—turningaside wrath. An interesting use occurs in the story of Jacob and Esauin Gen. 32. Jacob goes out to meet his brother Esau but is afraidbecause he had deceived their father, Isaac, into giving him theblessing that belonged to Esau (Gen. 27). Esau holds a grudge againstJacob and intends to kill him after mourning the death of theirfather (27:41). After years of separation, the brother reunite;Jacob, fearing the wrath of his brother, plans to avert his brother’sanger with gifts: “I will pacify him with these gifts I amsending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me”(32:20 [32:21 LXX]). Here exilaskomai, a verb related to hilasmos, isused when Jacob says that he hopes to “pacify” Esau. Thiscontext suggests not expiation or atonement but appeasem*nt (cf.NRSV, NET). Jacob fears the wrath of his brother. To avert thatwrath, he sends gifts.
Theidea of propitiating God’s wrath occurs throughout the OT.Granted, it does not amount to bribery, as was potentially the casein pagan usage, where a god was “paid off” by asacrifice, with no sense of atonement for sin, but the notion ofaverting God’s wrath is common. For example, Moses is directedby God to take a census of the people to count them, and each one isto pay God a ransom so that no plague will come upon them (Exod.30:12). This sum of money is then said to “make atonement”for their lives (30:16). Through the offering of ransom money to God,his wrath is turned away from the people, so that no plague will comeupon them. The idea of propitiating God’s wrath is found inother places in the OT: Exod. 32:30; Num. 8:19; 16:46; 35:31; Prov.16:6; Isa. 47:11. All of this suggests that the notion of atonementin the OT is best understood comprehensively to include both thecleansing and the forgiveness of the sinner (expiation) and theturning away of God’s wrath (propitiation).
NewTestament
Expiationand propitiation are combined in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He isboth the expiation for sin and the sacrifice that averts God’swrath. The Bible combines both expiation and propitiation into theone word hilasmos, and Jesus himself is the hilasmos for sin (Heb.2:17; 1John 2:2; 4:10; cf. Rom. 3:25 [hilastērion]). Theone action of Christ’s sacrifice has the double effect ofexpiating sin and thereby propitiating God. In the Bible, God’swrath results when his holiness is offended by sin. So there is needfor both expiation and propitiation. His wrath must be appeased sothat forgiveness for the sinner may result. Whereas expiation dealswith sin—satisfying the penalty incurred because ofsin—propitiation deals with wrath. Jesus accomplished both bybecoming the “atoning sacrifice” for our sins. He is theultimate mercy seat, the ultimate place of atonement and expiation(Heb. 9:5). He is also the ultimate sacrifice (Rom. 3:25).
TheNT is very nuanced regarding the sacrifice of Christ. Although itincludes both expiation and propitiation, these differ significantlyfrom Greek paganism and the OT. On one hand, God is too holy andrighteous for fallen humanity to expiate sin and satisfy his demandfor holiness by offering a sacrifice. On the other hand, God is notcapricious in that he simply needs to be pacified through a gift inorder to avert his wrath. The Bible teaches that no human being canoffer a sacrifice worthy enough to expiate his or her own sin or toavert God’s holy wrath. The pagan idea of propitiation isimpossible for fallen humanity. God’s holiness is so great thathe is rightfully wrathful at our sin, and our sin demands expiation.But we are unable to offer a sacrifice pure enough for our ownatonement. So God himself offers the sacrifice that both expiates oursin and averts his own wrath. Biblical propitiation is distinct frompagan propitiation. In the latter, human beings are the subjects ofthe action, the ones who are offering the propitiating sacrifice,while the gods receive the action and are thus propitiated. But Godis the subject of the action in the Bible. God has the right to bewrathful because of sin, to be righteously indignant. But he sendshis own Son to handle that wrath. God himself sends the sacrifice; heis the sacrifice; he is the place where that sacrifice is offered(Rom. 3:25).
Thereare three elements that help to summarize expiation/propitiation inthe Bible: (1)God was rightfully wrathful because of our sin,(2)God offered the sacrifice that averted his own wrath, and(3)God was the sacrifice that atoned for our sin. “Thisis love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Sonas an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1John 4:10).
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.”
A Jewish prophet at the time of Jesus, he was the son ofpriestly parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth), executed by HerodAntipas, and identified as “John” (a common Jewish name),often with the title “the Baptist” or “theBaptizer,” the latter possibly being the older title.
Ourprimary sources on John the Baptist are the canonical Gospels,Josephus (Ant. 18.116–19), and Acts. Both Jewish and Christiansources note John’s message of the kingdom, call to baptism,and popularity. Josephus and the Gospels can speak of him withoutintroduction. In the Gospels, only Jesus is a more prominentcharacter. It is possible that the typical peasant was more familiarwith John than with Jesus, at least until after Pentecost.
TheGospels, particularly Luke, parallel the stories of John and Jesus.Both had an annunciation, a miraculous birth accompanied by praise,and a martyr’s death. Both gathered disciples, announced thekingdom, denounced the Jewish leadership, and practiced baptism. Itis easy to see how some on the periphery confused the characters(Mark 8:28).
Ministry
Dressedin a prophet’s garment of camel’s hair (Matt. 3:4; cf.2Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4), the Baptist is noted for emerging fromthe wilderness and preaching near the Jordan. He called all listenersto repent to prepare Israel for the coming covenant of the Spirit. Heand his message were well known, disconcerting Jerusalem’spowerful elite (Mark 11:32) and enthralling the masses (Matt. 3:5–6).
Johnthe Baptist unwaveringly maintained that he was sent to introduce theSon (or Chosen One) of God, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit(John 1:33–34; cf. Matt. 3:11–12 pars.). This one was notnamed, but the Baptist was told how he would know him: “The manon whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one”(John 1:33). Thus, the Baptist could claim, “I myself did notknow him” (John 1:31), more likely meaning that the Baptist didnot know Jesus was the one until the Spirit descended on him (1:32).It is less likely that John meant that he had not met his cousinpreviously (Luke 1:39–45). Jesus accepts (and validates) theBaptist’s proclamation both at the beginning of his ministry(Mark 1:9) and again later (Luke 16:16; John 5:35; 10:41).
Afterhis imprisonment, the Baptist seems less certain of his earlieridentification of Jesus as the coming one (Matt. 11:2–3). Itshould also be noted that John had not disbanded his disciples. Afterhis death, some continued to preach his baptism of repentance as faraway as in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–26; 19:1–7). Similarly,Jesus’ last description of the Baptist is ambiguous. It isguarded but still complimentary (John 5:32–36; 10:41) and evenlofty: “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyonegreater than John the Baptist”; however, Jesus’ nextstatement could be interpreted to mean that the Baptist was not yetpart of the coming kingdom: “Yet whoever is least in thekingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Likeeveryone else, John was confused by Jesus’ preaching ministry.Jesus was not acting like the Messiah they were expecting (Luke7:18–20). The Gospels offer no final verdict on the Baptist.
Message
LikeIsaiah, the Baptist’s message of restoration of the kingdommeant comfort and hope for those preparing for its arrival (Isa. 40;Mark 1:2–6) and judgment for those unprepared (Isa. 41; Matt.3:7–10; Luke 3:7–9). The return of the kingdom was by anew covenant, marked by the Spirit (Mark 1:2–8). Cleansing withwater is connected to replacing the old covenant (etched in stone)with the new (imbedded in hearts with the Spirit) by the prophets(Ezek. 36:24–28; Jer. 31), by the Baptist (John 1:31–33),by Jesus (John 3:5), and by early Christians (2Cor. 3; Heb.9–10). Preparing (Matt. 3:3) meant repenting and living inpiety and justice as a member of the kingdom (Luke 3:10–14).This commitment of renewed faithfulness was marked by one’s own(ethical) cleansing, symbolized in baptism. While ritual lustrationswere somewhat common for initiation or membership in a group, Johnthe Baptist called all who would devote themselves to God to repent,confess their sins, and be baptized (Mark 1:4–5).
TheSynoptic Gospels portray Jesus and John as allies in announcing thekingdom. It has been argued that the Fourth Gospel has ananti-Baptist polemic. Because of historical elements (in Ephesus?),it may be more accurate to say that the Fourth Gospel strives toclarify the Baptist’s place in salvation history. He issubordinate to Jesus by divine design (John 1–5) and by deed(John 10:41). He was the Elijah who was to come before the Christ(Matt. 11:14).
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycirc*mstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcirc*mstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycirc*mstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcirc*mstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
“Expiation” refers to the atonement of sin andthe removal of guilt, while “propitiation” refers to theappeasem*nt or satisfaction of wrath. Both ideas are present in theone Greek word hilasmos (and its cognates) used in the LXX and theNT. It is difficult to translate hilasmos into English using onecorresponding word, so two words, “expiation” and“propitiation,” are often used. This is problematicbecause neither term precisely captures the nuances of the Greekword. The problem persists because, as noted above, “expiation”and “propitiation” have different meanings in English.Because no single English word conveys the full sense of hilasmos,“expiation” and “propitiation” areconveniently combined in the NIV’s “sacrifice ofatonement” or “atoning sacrifice” (Rom. 3:25;1John 2:2; 4:10).
GreekBackground
Inclassical Greek, hilasmos referred to a sacrifice that would somehowavert a god’s wrath. When a worshiper sinned against a god andviolated the god’s holiness, the worshiper paid the properamount, through some kind of sacrifice, so that the god’s wrathwas then averted. It was a means of turning the god from anger to afavorable attitude, and it functioned by giving the god something(via sacrifice) that compensated for the offense. This sacrifice wasintended not as atonement for the worshiper’s sin but rather toappease the wrath of the god. The worshiper was the subject whooffered the sacrifice to the god as the object in an effort toappease the god’s wrath.
OldTestament
TheOT shares this Greek usage to a degree but also expands it to includethe more familiar biblical notion of expiation or atonement. The LXXuses hilasmos to convey the ideas of expiation as well aspropitiation. The word group associated with hilasmos is used indifferent contexts throughout the Bible, so context must determinethe meaning in each case. A prominent use occurs in Lev. 25:9, whereit refers to the Day of Atonement. Here hilasmos involves the removalof guilt effected by a sacrifice. A similar use is found in Num. 5:8,where hilasmos is used in connection with the ram with which peoplemake atonement for their sins. Ezekiel 44:27 uses the same term whenreferring to the sin offering that a priest must make for his ownsins upon entrance into the holy place. Each of these examples useshilasmos to translate the biblical concept of expiation: theatonement of sin and the removal of guilt. The unholy worshiper whosins against God is made holy once again by offering a sacrifice toatone for his or her sin.
Hilasmosalso conveys forgiveness. Forgiveness is closely connected withatonement. The LXX uses a related term hilastērion twenty-eighttimes to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of thecovenant over which God appeared on the Day of Atonement and on whichsacrificial blood was poured. The mercy seat was where both atonementand forgiveness were found. The term is used in Heb. 9:5 to refer tothe same mercy seat or “atonement cover” (NIV). Hereagain, mercy and forgiveness are linked to the idea of atonement.Psalm 130:4 (129:4 LXX) also uses hilasmos to convey the connectionbetween atonement and forgiveness: “But with you there isforgiveness/atonement [hilasmos].”
Insome cases, hilasmos bears the sense of propitiation—turningaside wrath. An interesting use occurs in the story of Jacob and Esauin Gen. 32. Jacob goes out to meet his brother Esau but is afraidbecause he had deceived their father, Isaac, into giving him theblessing that belonged to Esau (Gen. 27). Esau holds a grudge againstJacob and intends to kill him after mourning the death of theirfather (27:41). After years of separation, the brother reunite;Jacob, fearing the wrath of his brother, plans to avert his brother’sanger with gifts: “I will pacify him with these gifts I amsending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me”(32:20 [32:21 LXX]). Here exilaskomai, a verb related to hilasmos, isused when Jacob says that he hopes to “pacify” Esau. Thiscontext suggests not expiation or atonement but appeasem*nt (cf.NRSV, NET). Jacob fears the wrath of his brother. To avert thatwrath, he sends gifts.
Theidea of propitiating God’s wrath occurs throughout the OT.Granted, it does not amount to bribery, as was potentially the casein pagan usage, where a god was “paid off” by asacrifice, with no sense of atonement for sin, but the notion ofaverting God’s wrath is common. For example, Moses is directedby God to take a census of the people to count them, and each one isto pay God a ransom so that no plague will come upon them (Exod.30:12). This sum of money is then said to “make atonement”for their lives (30:16). Through the offering of ransom money to God,his wrath is turned away from the people, so that no plague will comeupon them. The idea of propitiating God’s wrath is found inother places in the OT: Exod. 32:30; Num. 8:19; 16:46; 35:31; Prov.16:6; Isa. 47:11. All of this suggests that the notion of atonementin the OT is best understood comprehensively to include both thecleansing and the forgiveness of the sinner (expiation) and theturning away of God’s wrath (propitiation).
NewTestament
Expiationand propitiation are combined in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He isboth the expiation for sin and the sacrifice that averts God’swrath. The Bible combines both expiation and propitiation into theone word hilasmos, and Jesus himself is the hilasmos for sin (Heb.2:17; 1John 2:2; 4:10; cf. Rom. 3:25 [hilastērion]). Theone action of Christ’s sacrifice has the double effect ofexpiating sin and thereby propitiating God. In the Bible, God’swrath results when his holiness is offended by sin. So there is needfor both expiation and propitiation. His wrath must be appeased sothat forgiveness for the sinner may result. Whereas expiation dealswith sin—satisfying the penalty incurred because ofsin—propitiation deals with wrath. Jesus accomplished both bybecoming the “atoning sacrifice” for our sins. He is theultimate mercy seat, the ultimate place of atonement and expiation(Heb. 9:5). He is also the ultimate sacrifice (Rom. 3:25).
TheNT is very nuanced regarding the sacrifice of Christ. Although itincludes both expiation and propitiation, these differ significantlyfrom Greek paganism and the OT. On one hand, God is too holy andrighteous for fallen humanity to expiate sin and satisfy his demandfor holiness by offering a sacrifice. On the other hand, God is notcapricious in that he simply needs to be pacified through a gift inorder to avert his wrath. The Bible teaches that no human being canoffer a sacrifice worthy enough to expiate his or her own sin or toavert God’s holy wrath. The pagan idea of propitiation isimpossible for fallen humanity. God’s holiness is so great thathe is rightfully wrathful at our sin, and our sin demands expiation.But we are unable to offer a sacrifice pure enough for our ownatonement. So God himself offers the sacrifice that both expiates oursin and averts his own wrath. Biblical propitiation is distinct frompagan propitiation. In the latter, human beings are the subjects ofthe action, the ones who are offering the propitiating sacrifice,while the gods receive the action and are thus propitiated. But Godis the subject of the action in the Bible. God has the right to bewrathful because of sin, to be righteously indignant. But he sendshis own Son to handle that wrath. God himself sends the sacrifice; heis the sacrifice; he is the place where that sacrifice is offered(Rom. 3:25).
Thereare three elements that help to summarize expiation/propitiation inthe Bible: (1)God was rightfully wrathful because of our sin,(2)God offered the sacrifice that averted his own wrath, and(3)God was the sacrifice that atoned for our sin. “Thisis love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Sonas an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1John 4:10).
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).
Showing
1
to
37
of37
results
1. The Covenants of the Scripture
Illustration
Merrill F. Unger
Scripture'scovenants and their significance:
Eternal covenant, Hebrews 13:20 :The redemptive covenant before time began, between the Father and the Son. By this covenant we have eternal redemption, an eternal peace from the 'God of peace', through the death and resurrection of the Son.
Edenic covenant, Genesis 1:26-28: The creative covenant between the Triune God, as the first party (Genesis 1:26), and newly created man, as the second party, governing man's creation and life in Edenic innocence. It regulated man's dominion and subjugation of the earth, and presented a simple test of obedience. The penalty was death.
Adamic covenant, Genesis 3:14-19: The covenant conditioning fallen man's life on the earth. Satan's tool (the serpent) was cursed (Gen 3:14); the first promise of the Redeemer was given (3:15); women's status was altered (3:16); the earth was cursed (3:17-19); physical and spiritual death resulted (3:19).
Noahic covenant, Genesis 8:20-9:6: The covenant of human government. Man is to govern his fellowmen for God, indicated by the institution of capital punishment as the supreme judicial power of the state (Genesis 9:5-6). Other features included the promise of redemption through the line of Shem (Genesis 9:26).
Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12:1-3; confirmed 13:14-17; 15:1-7; 17:1-8: The covenant of promise. Abraham's posterity was to be made a great nation. In him (through Christ) all the families of the earth were to be blessed (Galations 3:16; John 8:56-58).
Mosaic covenant, Exodus 20:1-31:18: The legal covenant, given solely to Israel. It consisted of the commandments (Exodus 20:1-26); the judgments (social) - (Exodus 21:1; 24:11) and the ordinances (religious); (Exodus 24:12-31:18); also called the law. It was a conditional covenant of works, a ministry of 'condemnation' and 'death' (2 Corinthians 3:7-9), designed to lead the transgressor (convicted thereby as a sinner) to Christ.
Palestinian covenant, Deut 30:1-10: The covenant regulating Israel's tenure of the land of Canaan. Its prophetic features include dispersion of disobedience (Deuteronomy 30:1), future repentance while in dispersion (30:2), the Lord's return (30:3), the restoration (30:4-5, national conversion (3:6), judgment of Israel's foes (30:7), national prosperity (30:9). Its blessings are conditioned upon obedience (30:8,10), but fulfillment is guaranteed by the new covenant.
Davidic covenant, 2 Samuel 7:4-17, 1 Chr 17:4-15: The kingdom covenant regulating the temporal and eternal rule of David's posterity. It secures in perpetuity a Davidic 'house' or line, a throne, and a kingdom. It was confirmed by divine oath in Psalm 89:30-37 and renewed to Mary in Luke 1:31-33. It is fulfilled in Christ as the World's Saviour and Israel's coming King (Acts 1:6; Rev 19:16; 20:4-6).
New covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrew 8:8-12: The covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemption of Christ. It secures blessing for the church, flowing from the Abrahamic covenant (Galations 3:13-20), and secures all covenant blessings to converted Israel, including those of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, and Davidic covenants. This covenant is unconditional, final and irreversible.
2. The Last Meal
Illustration
Larry Powell
Perhapsyou have visited the Upper Room Chapel in Nashville, Tennessee, and had the opportunity to meditate before the marvelous wood carving and its appointments which so dramatically depict the Last Supper. One of the mysterious features of this particular carving is that no matter where you kneel before the figure of Christ, his eyes gaze strangely into yours. So it must have seemed to the disciples gathered around the table in Jerusalem on that fateful evening. How much more intense it must have been for Judas, and we can but wonder where his eyes were fixed when Jesus uttered those terrible words. "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me" (Matthew 26:23).
So far as the disciples were concerned, they had gathered, as they had done since childhood, to partake of the traditional Passover meal. The streets of Jerusalem were crowded with pious Jews who had come into the city for this express purpose. The ritual was always the same: while at the table, the story of the escape from Egypt would be recounted ... there would be special foods on the table and unleavened bread would be eaten as a reminder of the haste in which the Exodus people had been forced to flee Egypt ... it was always the same.
To the disciples’ surprise however, Jesus suddenly departed from the familiar references; "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ Likewise also the cup after supper saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’ " Jesus had dramatically transformed the Passover supper into the Lord’s Supper on the evening of his "last supper" with them (see also Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-29).
The Lord’s Supper:
1. Is a sacrament, meaning that it was instituted by Christ and commanded to be continued "till he come." In Paul’s familiar passage, used in the sacrament ritual, he adds, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).
2. Symbolizes the new covenant. The Old Testament covenant of the Law was sealed with the blood of animal sacrifice. However, this covenant had failed. The prophets themselves had said, "Behold, the days will come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new convenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." The covenant of Law was being superseded by the new convenant of love, sealed by the blood of Christ.
3. Uses of common elements. In addition to using the traditional elements of the Passover, bread and wine, Jesus realized that each day when his followers partook of their meals, two things were certain to be on the table ... bread and wine. Consequently, even an ordinary meal would include reminders of the new covenant.
4. Was observed anxiously. Devout early Christians met daily to observe the sacrament in the prayerful hope that Jesus would return while they were sharing the sacred meal. In time, the early Church observed the sacrament each Sunday, a practice continued until the Reformation. Oddly enough, in Scotland, during the sixteenth century, it was observed in the country twice and in town four times a year.
5. Is called the eucharist, meaning the "thanksgiving," based on the passage, "He took a cup, and when he had given thanks...."
Perhaps John Calvin spoke for each of us when he admitted that "the matter is too sublime for me to be able to express, or even to comprehend ... I rather experience it, than understand it."
3. Temptations of Daily People
Illustration
Douglas R. A. Hare
This passage (4:1—11) is often appointed by lectionaries for the first Sunday of Lent. The presumption is that the narrative is of direct relevance for Christians as they enter a period of penitence. Ordinary Christians are unlikely to perceive it so, and with good cause. The story does not correspond with our experience; we do not hold conversations with a visible devil, nor are we whisked from place to place as Jesus is in the story. Moreover, the temptations that Jesus faces are peculiar to him; they seem very remote from those we face day by day. This passage may in fact prompt some to doubt the validity of Hebrews 4:15: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." What did Jesus know of the temptations that are faced daily by the recovering alcoholic and substance abuser? the lonely divorcee? the struggling business owner? the teenager who covets peer acceptance above all?
There is, however, a common denominator that links all of these with the temptation as ascribed to Jesus. The basic, underlying temptation that Jesus shared with us is the temptation to treat God as less than God. We may not be tempted to turn stones into bread (we are more apt to turn butter into guns, but we are constantly tempted to mistrust God's readiness to empower us to face our trials. None of us is likely to put God to the test by leaping from a cliff, but we are frequently tempted to question God's helpfulness when things go awry; we forget the sure promise, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (II Corinthians 12:9). Pagan idolatry is no more a temptation for us than it was for Jesus, but compromise with the ways of the world is a continuing seduction. It is indeed difficult for us to worship and serve God only. We should be continually grateful that we have a great high priest who, tempted as we are, was able to resist all such temptations by laying hold of Scripture and firmly acknowledging that only God is God.
4. No Need for Words
Illustration
Stanley Mooneyham
When you know who you are, you don't have to impress anyone. When Jesus was taken before the high priest, who asked, "What do you have to say for yourself?" Jesus was silent. Wrong question.
When the high priest then asked Him if He was the Son of God, Jesus said, "I am." Right question.
Before Pilate, who asked, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus replied, “Yes, it is as you say." Right question.
In the Luke account, Herod asked Jesus question after question, but there was no reply. Wrong questions.
When you have discovered your identity, you need to say little else. Toyohiko Kagawa, the Japanese Christian who spent his life working with and for the poor, was speaking at Princeton. When he finished his talk, one student said to another, "He didn't say much, did he?"
A woman sitting nearby leaned over and murmured, "When you’re hanging on a cross, you don't have to say anything."
5. CARVER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
1 Kings 6:35 - "On them he carved cherubim and palm trees and open flowers; and he overlaid with gold evenly applied upon the carved work."
Carving was one of the very earliest activities, of man. Before primitive man knew anything about agriculture or clothing he had found a way of chipping, rubbing, or scraping many different kinds of materials into the sculptural shapes he desired. Bone, ivory, and horn carvings have been found that were made 50,000 years ago.
It is interesting to note that, apart from allusions, usually sarcastic, to the carvings of idols, all the Old Testament references to the carving of wood, stone, and metal pertain to the Tabernacle, or its successor, the Temple.
The recorder of the biblical record has made especial note of the carving on the bronze stand of the temple layers, and, in speaking of the temple doors, he makes mention of the decoration of these olivewood and cypress doors and the cedar wainscoting with carvings of "cherubims and palm trees and open flowers."
The Hebrew carvers were especially skilled in woodworking, and this is particularly evidenced in what we can picture the cherubim the Holy of Holies to have been. Since these were made from olivewood, each fifteen feet high, it is obvious that a great deal of joinery and carving were necessary.
The interior walls of Solomon’s Temple were completely covered with cedarwood wainscoting; the floor was covered with boards of cypress; nowhere was any stone to be seen. These woods, further, were filled with carved figures of gourds, lotus blossoms, birds, palm trees, and cherubs, and many other symbols.
And, of course, as time went on, they became more and more adept in this art. So much so, that by the time Herod the Great rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem, it’s beauty was proverbial. I mean that quite literally - "He who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen anything beautiful," was a common proverb of that day. Although we have conflicting reports of this building, and we do know vast areas of it were covered with gold, still we may assume that a great deal of carving was also found here.
And, of course, the accomplished carver could make a very good living for himself in ornamenting the homes of the wealthy, in making jewelry, in all the ways in which carving is used today. There are extant magnificent pieces of carved jade and ivory that any woman would give her eye-teeth to have made for her today - and they are many centuries old!
6. The Long Road to Forgiveness
Illustration
Jim Cymbala, with Dean Merrill
One day, a woman named Amalia came to Pastor Jim Cymbala’s office at the Brooklyn Tabernacle. She began to tell him her life story. Amalia’s father had been a violent alcoholic who beat Amalia’s mother. One night, to protect her mother from another beating, Amalia traded bedrooms with her mother. That night, Amalia’s father began molesting her. Soon, the only way to keep Amalia’s father from beating her mother was to allow him to molest little Amalia. After many years of this abuse, Amalia married a young man in her building and moved out. Amalia’s new husband introduced her to the pleasures of drug use, and soon she was hooked. Their marriage ended, and she found work as a stripper. After giving birth to a baby boy, Vinnie, Amalia decided that she needed to make some changes if she was going to be a good mother to her little son. And here was the point of her visit: Amalia wanted to know if God could really accept her after all she’d done, and if He could change her life. Through the prayers and guidance of the Brooklyn Tabernacle prayer group, Amalia became a Christian. God healed her feelings of shame, her depression, her nightmares, and her memories of abuse. A few months after her conversion, Amalia found her father and forgave him for all he had done to her.
7. God's Treasure
Illustration
John A. Stroman
Tom Long asks the question in his book Shepherds and Bathrobes: "Have you ever noticed where God placed his treasure on this earth?" The treasure is not gold, but gospel. Not silver, but good news. Not hard, cold cash, but grace, love, and peace. He points out that God could have left it with the politicians, those who are responsible for collecting taxes, building schools, and passing laws, but God didn't. God could have left this treasure with Zechariah, the high priest, but his unbelief took him out of the picture. Tom Long states that God left the treasure in the least likely of places: in the love, care, and nurture of a first century peasant woman chosen as the "handmaiden of the Lord." God's treasure was left with the most powerless figure in the ancient world. Doesn't that tell you something about God's grace in today's world?
8. Give To God The Things That Are God's
Illustration
Phyllis Faaborg Wolk
"Tell us what you think, Teacher. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" When the Pharisees asked Jesus that question, he responded with a request, "Show me the coin used for the tax," and someone handed Jesus a coin embossed with the head of the current Roman emperor, Tiberius. Engraved around his head was the inscription, "Tiberius Caesar, majestic son of the majestic God, and High Priest." "Whose image is on this coin?" Jesus asked. "The emperor's," they responded. "Well then," Jesus said, "give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor." The image of the emperor was embossed on the coin, therefore the coin belonged to him.
But in answering the Pharisees' question, Jesus didn't stop with the issue of taxation. He continued, "and give to God what belongs to God." As Jesus spoke the words, "give to God what belongs to God," standing right before him were those on whom the image of God had been embossed. The Pharisees, teachers of the law of Israel, children of Abraham whom God had claimed as his own, had been created from the very beginning in the image of God. In the image of himself, God had created them. They belonged to God. Those in whose eyes Jesus looked as he spoke were the coins of God. "Give to God what belongs to God," Jesus said. But when he spoke those words, the Pharisees left him and went away.
Should we pay taxes to the government? Yes, Jesus would say. But again, Jesus wouldn't stop there. Today he looks you in the eye and says, "Give to God what belongs to God." And as he looks at you, Jesus sees the image of God. In the beginning God created you and embossed his image upon you. In the waters of baptism, God marked you with the cross of Christ forever. God has given himself to you and has promised to love you and be with you forever.
Mrs. Detweiler was created in the image of God. She worked at Murray Elementary as the special education teacher. It didn't take her students long to recognize the image of God within her which made them feel special and loved. Even though she was a special education teacher, the students of Murray Elementary considered it a privilege to be invited to Mrs. Detweiler's room. The walls of her small classroom were covered with stars made out of bright yellow construction paper. Neatly written in black permanent marker on the star at the top of each row was the name of one of her students. As soon as a student finished reading a book, the title of that book was placed on another star that soon appeared directly beneath the star bearing the student's name. The more books a person read, the more stars accumulated under the name. Whenever her students finished a book, Mrs. Detweiler made them feel like stars, themselves. Her ability to make her students feel special and important was a mark of the image of God shining through her.
Mrs. Detweiler bore the image of God. She loved her students -- that was the image of God. She gave of herself by teaching them to read -- that was the image of God. She believed in her students -- that was the image of God. But even as one created in the image of God, Mrs. Detweiler would be the first to say that she had her faults. There were times when she let her students down; times when she lost her patience; times when her mood affected her ability to respond to her students enthusiastically. Mrs. Detweiler wasn't perfect, but she had been created in the image of God, claimed as God's child through her baptism and renewed each day with the gift of forgiveness. As she gave God what belonged to God by giving of herself to her students, Jesus worked through her. Through Mrs. Detweiler, God's love, acceptance and encouragement was shown to many students as they grew and matured into the people God had created them to be. As she gave God what belonged to God, God continued to give himself to her, revealing his love again and again through the sparkle in her students' eyes.
You are God's. His image has been placed within you. When I look at you, I see the image of God. I see the image of God in your faces as you greet one another before worship. I see the image of God each time you pray for each other and share one another's concerns. I see the image of God when I go to the nursing home and watch you hug and hold and gently speak with those who reside there. I see the image of God when I watch the Sunday school staff relate with the children -- so often God's love is given and received in the simple interactions they share. I see the image of God in the church kitchen, as members of this congregation work side by side to prepare a meal after a funeral or before a fellowship event. I see the image of God every time one of you gives to the Lord's work in a generous and cheerful way, sharing with others the blessings God has given you. God's image shines when you invite and welcome your neighbors to church -- not only those who are like you, but those who bring different perspectives and talents and needs to this body of Christ. I see God's image as this congregation reaches beyond itself to support missionaries and relieve world hunger. Whenever you give of yourself to others, the image of God within you is being revealed.
You are the bearers of God's image. Jesus said, "Give to God the things that are God's." You are God's. Jesus says, "Give yourself to God." But before you can even respond to Jesus' call to give yourself to God, God gives himself to you. Even before you have a chance to respond to Jesus' command, Jesus goes to the cross. Jesus goes to the cross to give to God what belongs to God. Jesus goes to the cross to give you to his Father in Heaven, who then blesses you with salvation and eternal life. Jesus goes to the cross for you and gives you life.
Give to God the things that are God's. When you give yourself to God, God will nurture his image within you. Jesus who now lives in you will give himself to others whenever you give of yourself to those in need. Jesus will use you to reveal God's love and forgiveness, to show all God's children how special they are to God, and to proclaim salvation to all who have been created in the image of God. Give to God things that are God's, remembering that Jesus has already given himself for you. Amen.
9. The Chance for Evangelism
Illustration
William Barclay
One of the great disasters of history took place in 1271. In 1271 Niccolo and Matteo Polo (the father and uncle of Marco) were visiting the Kubla Khan. Kubla Khan at that time was a world ruler, for he ruled all China, all India, and all of the East. He was attracted to the story of Christianity as Niccolo and Matteo told it to him. And he said to them: "You shall go to your high priest and tell him on my behalf to send me a hundred men skilled in your religion and I shall be baptized, and when I am baptized all my barons and great men will be baptized and their subjects will receive baptism, too, and so there will be more Christians here than there are in your parts." Nothing was done. Nothing was done for about thirty years, and then two or three missionaries were sent. Too few and too late. It baffles the imagination to think what a difference to the world it would have made if in the thirteenth century China had become fully Christian, if in the thirteenth century India had become fully Christian, if in the thirteenth century the East had been given to Christ. In that, we have seen man frustrating God's purpose in history.
Note: This is true.One of the grandest opportunities that the Church of Christ has ever had presented to it, and it must be remembered this was before the rise of Protestantism, is connected with Kublai Khan. There are letters still extant, preserved in theFrench archives, relating the remarkable fact that Kublai Khan actually requested the Pope to send one hundred missionaries to his country "to prove by force of argument, to idolaters and other kinds of folk, that the law of Christ was best, and that all other religions were false and naught; and that if they would prove this, he and all under him would become Christians and the Church's liegemen." "What might have been" is a question that cannot but rise in the hearts of those who read this extract. The death of the Pope, however, and faction among the cardinals, with the subsequent failure of the two missionaries sent — they turned back because of the hardships of the way—lost to Asia an opportunity such as the Church has seldom had. (From Wikisource)
10. The Political Controversies of Jesus - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Someone has figured that if we put all of the materials in the Gospels that tell us about the life of Jesus together that it would equal about 80 pages. Yet, most of that would represent duplication, for we know that some of the Gospel writers copied from others. If, therefore you eliminate the duplication, you would have only 20 pages that tell us about Jesus life and teachings. Of those 20 pages, 13 of them deal specifically with the last week of his life. And if you separate it still further, you will discover that one-third of those 13 pages took place on Tuesday of Holy Week. Thus, in terms of sheer volume, we know far more on this day in his life than any other day. The events of that day represent a significant percentage of what we know about the man Jesus.
We know that Jesus spent Monday evening in Bethany, probably in the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, since that is where he spent Sunday evening. He arose early on Tuesday morning and he and his disciples returned to Jerusalem. If you will then let your mind drift back through the pages of history, let us assume for a moment that you are living in First Century Palestine. It is the Season of the Passover and you and your family are among the thousands of religious pilgrims who have migrated to the ancient walled city of Jerusalem to participate in the religious celebration. You were there on Monday when Jesus took whip in hand and radically ran the moneychangers from the temple. It had been an eventful day.
But now it is Monday and it has come time to retire with your family. As you walk down the Villa de la Rosa you pass by the palace of the high priest, the residence of Caiaphas. You notice that a light is burning in the upper floor of this exquisite mansion. You comment to your family that Caiaphas must be working long hours to see that all of the religious festivities go on as scheduled. Yet, if you only knew what was really going on in that palace that evening. If you only knew what was taking place in that smoke filled room.
Gathered around the table that evening in the palace was one of the strangest combinations of political and religious factions that anyone could possibly imagine. Yet, politics makes strange bedfellows. It is interesting to me to see how fundamentalist Protestant denominations find a partner in the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of abortion. It is interesting to me to see how fundamentalist Protestants and Jews are brought together because they have similar views on the protection of Israel. Groups that would normally not have communication are sometimes strangely brought together for a temporary goal. That is what happened that night in Jerusalem. Here is the background.
The three groups conspired together that evening: the Herodians, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. Their common goal was to discredit Jesus of Nazareth in front of his constituency, the common people. It was probably not their intent to assassinate Jesus, which is what eventually happened, but rather to discredit him. They did not want a martyr on their hands. They would much prefer to make him a fool. Let's give him enough rope and he may just hang himself. Thus, each group would in turn ask him a question, not because they thought that they could learn from him, but because they wished to trick him. They were hoping for that one slip of the tongue. Each group would ask him a question that would be dear to their cause:
- The first question asked was from the Herodians.
- The next question was asked by Sadducees.
- The third question came from a Pharisee.
- Having routed the opposition, Jesus now, in essence, says, "It is my turn! Now I want to ask you a question.
11. RULER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Daniel 5:29 - "Then Belshazzar commanded, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put about his neck, and proclamation was made concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom."
The ruler, as I’m sure you’re saying to yourself, is rather obviously someone who rules or governs, or who assists in carrying on a government. Although we associate this position primarily with inheritance, as in the case of England’s ruler, Queen Elizabeth, in the ancient world, this title was often bestowed by kings on their subjects as a signal act of honor. For example, Daniel was made ruler over the whole province of Babylon by Nebuchanezzar for interpreting a dream, and again made third ruler of the kingdom after interpreting the writing on the wall at the time of Belshazzar’s great feast.
There were also, in later times, the ruler of the synagogue; the ruler of the treasure, or the chief treasurer; and the high priest, who was considered the "ruler of the house of God."
We have already made the obvious comparison. In our laregly democratic world today, the inherited ruling positions are fading away, and we no longer consider them as highly influential persons. But, at one time, the ruler held the power of life and death over his subjects, and everything that that implies went with this power.
12. The Martyr's Prayer
Illustration
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and an early church leader whose life ended when he refused to betray his Lord. Asked one last time to disavow his Christ, the old man replied, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How can I speak evil of my King who saved me?"
Here is his martyr's prayer, as recorded by the historian Eusebius:
"Father of Your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of You, I bless You that You have counted me worthy of this day and hour, that I might be in the number of the martyrs. Among these may I be received before You today in a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as You have beforehand prepared and revealed. Wherefore I also praise You also for everything; I bless You; I glorify You, through the eternal High Priest Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, through whom, with Him, in the Holy Spirit, be glory unto You both now and for the ages to come. Amen."
Eusebius adds: "When he had offered up his amen and had finished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire."
13. Floodlight Ministry
Illustration
James Packer
The Holy Spirit's distinctive role is to fulfill what we may call a floodlight ministry in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. So far as this role was concerned, the Spirit "was not yet" (John 7:29, literal Greek) while Jesus was on earth; only when the Father had glorified him (John 17:1, 5) could the Spirit's work of making men aware of Jesus' glory begin.
One pastor recalls walking to church one winter evening to preach on the words, "He will glorify me" (John 16:14), seeing the building floodlit as he turned a corner, and realizing that this was exactly the illustration his message needed. When floodlighting is well done, the floodlights are placed so that you do not see them; in fact, you are not supposed to see where the light is coming from; what you are meant to see is just the building on which the floodlights are trained. The intended effect is to make it visible when otherwise it would not be seen for the darkness, and to maximize its dignity by throwing all its details into relief so that you can see it properly. This perfectly illustrated the Spirit's new covenant role. He is, so to speak, the hidden floodlight shining on the Savior.
Or think of it this way. It is as if the Spirit stands behind us, throwing light over our shoulder on to Jesus who stands facing us. The Spirit's message to us is never, "Look at me; listen to me; come to me; get to know me", but always, "Look at him, and see his glory; listen to him and hear his word; go to him and have life; get to know him and taste his gift of joy and peace." The Spirit, we might say, is the matchmaker, the celestial marriage broker, whose role it is to bring us and Christ together and ensure that we stay together.
14. Personal Understanding of Jesus' Identity
Illustration
Brett Blair
Who do you say that I am? I would suggest to you this morning that that is the most urgent, the most relevant, the most theological question that confronts us today. Wherever we turn in life we are faced with the implications of this question.
Throughout the ages various individuals have attempted to answer that question posed by Jesus. Ernest Renan, a French writer, answered it by saying that Jesus was a sentimental idealist. Bruce Barton, an American businessman, said that who Jesus was the greatest salesman who ever lived. William Hirsch, a Jewish writer, responded that Jesus conformed to the clinical picture of paranoia. A musical drama was performed some years ago that answered this question by saying that Jesus was a Superstar. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian, referred to Jesus as the "man for others."
The Gospel writers also attempted in their own fashion to answer this most fundamental question. They bestowed upon him numerous titles and claims: Son of God, Son of man, Divine physician, king, prophet, bridegroom, light of the world, the door, the vine, high priest, the firstborn of creation, the bright and morning star, and Alpha and Omega.
All of these were attempts to answer this question posed by Jesus. But these are attempts made by others. Jesus is more concerned with what your answer is than what there answer is. Martin Luther, another German theologian, wrote: "I care not whether he be Christ, but that he be Christ for you." Peter responded: Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Is he Christ for you?
15. The Authority of the Church
Illustration
Douglas R. A. Hare
There is general agreement that the phrase "the gates of Hades" is poetic language for the power of death (see Isa. 38:10). What is meant is that the congregation of the new covenant will persist into the age to come despite all the efforts of the powers of darkness to destroy it. "The gates of Hades" may here represent a defensive posture: death will strive to hold in its prison house all who have entered its gates, but the Messiah's congregation will triumphantly storm the gates and rescue those destined for the life of the age to come.
16. SENATOR
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Acts 5:21 - "Now the high priest came and those who were with him and called together the council and all the senate of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought."
Psalm 105:22 - "To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom" (KJV).
The quotation from the Psalms is the only place in the Old Testament where we find the use of the term "senator;" generally the Hebrew uses the word "elder." It may have been this use of the term which made Luke think that there was a separate branch of the Great Sanhedrin which was composed of "senators." However, although some have thought that the Sanhedrin was in fact composed of three bodies - senators, scribes, and priests - it was, in fact, an entity, always considered as a whole, not separate factions.
However, again the apocryphal writings do use it rather more frequently; according to II Macc 6:1, Antiochus Epiphanes sent an "Athenian senator" to the Jews to force their acceptance of the worship of Olympian Zeus. The earliest historical writings to use the term in referring to members of the Great Sanhedrin come from Josephus, that fount of ancient knowledge - in Antiq. XII. iii. 3, again it is Antiochus the Great who uses the term.
We can, then, by gathering together all these divergent uses, conclude that the term was at least one of respect, indicating a person of rank within the legal and judicial system of the Jews. We can easily bridge the time gap and consider the "senator" today as a member, perhaps, of a supreme court or other law-making and law-enforcing body. Just as the term implies a person of wisdom, experience, and sound judgment, so we think of the officials whom we elect to be the arbiters and maintainers of our way of life. We, of course, still use the term in connection with the members of our state and federal governmental systems. And, hopefully, the men that we elect to fill these positions are also men of wisdom and judgment.
17. Gospel Counterfeits
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The following messages can be heard form the pulpits throughout the United Stets every morning.
- Noah’s message from the steps going up to the Ark was not, “Something good is going to happen to you!”
- Amos was not confronted by the high priest of Israel for proclaiming, “Confession is possession!”
- Jeremiah was not put into the pit for preaching, “I’m O.K., you’re O.K.!”
- Daniel was not put into the lion’s den for telling people, “Possibility thinking will move mountains!”
- John the Baptist was not forced to preach in the wilderness and eventually beheaded because he preached, “Smile, God loves you!”
- The two prophets of the tribulation will not be killed for preaching, “God is in his heaven and all is right with the world!”
But what, in actuality, was the message of all these men of God? A simple singleword: “Repent!”
18. Blasphemy Against the Spirit
Illustration
Staff
This statement (Matt 12:32, par Mk. 3:29, Luke 12:10) has been the subject of much questioning. Obviously the reference here is not to the naming of the Holy Spirit in a blasphemous utterance, for in Matt. 12:32 even blasphemy against the Son of man can be forgiven. Among the many attempts at exegesis, the most convincing is the suggestion that the man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who has recognized that God is working through the Holy Spirit in the actions of Jesus, and who quite consciously "misrepresent faith in God as faith in the devil. This saying is an extremely serious warning against the demonic and scarcely conceivable potential in man: To declare war on God. This is not done in weakness and doubt, but by one who has been overcome by the Holy Spirit and who knows very well on whom he is declaring war" (E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, 1971, 87; cf. H.W. Beyer, TDNT I:624; O.E. Evans, "The Unforgivable Sin", ExpT 68, 1956-57, 240-44). This is the blasphemer who does it deliberately, after encounter with the God of grace, as the context shows. For Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. "Therefore he who blasphemes the Spirit is no longer speaking against a God who is distant, about whom he entertains mere foolish thoughts, but against the one who makes evident to him his gracious work, and confirms it with his manifest, divine seal. He is a man who ought to give thanks, not to blaspheme" (A. Schlatter, on Matt. 12:32).
W.L. Lane draws attention to Sifre on Deut. 32:38 (end): "The Holy One, blessed be he, pardons everything else, but on profanation of the Name [i.e. blasphemy] he takes vengeance immediately" (The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 145) Lane goes on to comment: "This is the danger to which the scribes exposed themselves when they attributed to the agency of Satan the redemption brought by Jesus. The expulsion of demons was a sign of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God. Yet the scribal accusations against Jesus amount to a denial of the power and greatness of the Spirit of God. By assigning the action of Jesus to a demonic origin the scribes betray a perversion of spirit which, in defiance of the truth, chooses to call light darkness. In this historical context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes the conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God released through Jesus' work and act" (ibid). Thus blasphemy here is much more serious than the taking of the divine name in vain which a believer may have done before coming to repentance and faith.
It may be said to those who have been tormented by fear that they have committed the unforgivable sin that their concern is itself a sign that they have not committed the sin envisaged in Jesus' teaching here. Lane's interpretation also helps to explain the distinction drawn between blasphemy against the Son of man and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The distinction suggests that "while an attack on Jesus' own person, as son of Man and therefore 'hidden', is pardonable, any speaking against the power by which he works (i.e. the divine endowment for his messianic ministry) will not be pardoned" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 318). For such an action would be deliberately to attribute to Satan the action of God himself. (NIDNTT, v. 3, pp. 343-344)
What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Though many suggestions have been offered, I think the answer lies in the context here (Luke 12:7-12) and in the context of redemptive history. Remember that the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, and it is the Spirit who causes men to recognize who Jesus is. Hebrews 6 and 10 contain discussions of unforgivable sins, but the distinction between blasphemy against Christ and the Spirit has disappeared. Jesus seemed to be saying this: Because the Holy spirit has not yet been poured out in fullness, the Jews will be forgiven for blaspheming the Son of Man. They will be given a second chance to repent, as we see in the book of Acts. If, however, they continue to blaspheme after the Spirit has come, they will not be forgiven. But what is the sin, specifically? Since it is blasphemy, we must see it essentially as a verbal sin. In context it is the sin of saying that Jesus Christ is of the devil. Jesus was willing to excuse this blasphemy before Pentecost; but, in the new covenant era it is not longer excusable. If a person curses Jesus, but does not really know who Jesus is, that sin is forgivable. But if the Holy Spirit has borne witness to a person that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that person curses Him, it cannot be forgiven.
19. Urim and Thummim
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The story has been told of a young man who was a recent graduate of a theological seminary. Educated beyond his intelligence, he had arrived at the spot where he thought he knew all the answers to all the theological problems and was eager to parade his knowledge. He came to a certain town where lived an elderly Christian layman who had never been to a Bible school or seminary but had taught himself the Word of God under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. In a very humble way, he had gained a reputation as a man of wise counsel. When the prideful young theologian heard about him, he said, “I’d like to meet that man. I think I could ask him a question or two that he couldn’t answer!”
So a meeting was arranged. The first thing the young man said was, “Sir, I hear that you have quite a reputation as a Bible student. I’d like to ask you a question.” The old man said, “Well, I don’t know if I can answer it, but I’d be glad to try. What is your question?” The young man said, “Tell me, what were the Urim and the Thummim? The old man thought a moment, then said, “Well, sir, I don’t know really, and I don’t think anyone else does either. We do know the names mean ‘lights’ and ‘perfections’ and that these were the instruments by which the high priest could determine the mind of God in specific instances. Beyond that, I don’t think I could go. But you know, I’ve found that if we change just one letter in these words, we have the instrument by which we can know the mind and will of God in our lives.”
The young man was a bit puzzled. “What do you mean?” The old man said, “Well, it you change the ‘r’ in Urim to an ‘s,’ you’ll make it ‘Usim and Thummim.’ An when I want to know the mind of God, I just take the pages of my Bible and I ‘Usim and Thummim.’ And by that means I can learn whatever I need to know!”
20. The Deal on the Table
Illustration
Matthew Olanrewaju
The bank manager calls you up, meets up with you at a meeting in the comfort of your living room, tells you the good news, says your huge crippling mortgage is paid up, old debts written off and all overdraft paid. You say, stop kidding me, manager--what really brings you here. He says, serious--no joke, all monies and debts paid up from the man himself, look, here’s a signed cheque from the man himself. JC.
The deal is on the table, all you need to do is sign and it’s all done for you. Well still skeptical, which is understandable, you still ask, what’s the catch? The small print?
The Bank manager says, no, not this time, there isn’t one. Oh! Sorry he says, you must be obedient to the will of God for this deal to remain in force.
Would you sign it? Or rot in your old miserable ways. That is what the new covenant is all about. Someone paid for your debts to be written off and all he wants in return is an obedient heart. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT YOU, but I didn’t think about the deal, I’ve already signed it.
21. Neighbors Who Never Met - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
What parable would make a man with three doctoral degrees (one in medicine, one in theology, one in philosophy) leave civilization with all of its culture and amenities and depart for the jungles of darkest Africa? What parable could induce a man, who was recognized as one of the best concert organists in all of Europe, go to a place where there were no organs to play. What parable would so intensely motivate a man that he would give up a teaching position in Vienna, Austria to go and deal with people who were so deprived that they were still living in the superstitions of the dark ages for all practical purposes. The man who I am talking about, of course, is Dr. Albert Schweitzer. And the single parable that so radically altered his life, according to him, was our text for this morning. It was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
The Rich Man and Lazarus were neighbors, you know. They saw each other every day. Oh, not socially you understand, but there was contact. Every day the Rich Man saw this beggar at his front gate. Who were these men?
We shall call the Rich Man Dives [pronounced ‘Dive-ees': it's Latin for "Rich Man" as he has been called for centuries] Dives would have felt very comfortable living in our present time. He was a progressive kind of a guy. He was self-indulgent and this is the age of self-indulgency. The contrasting life-styles of these two men is so obvious that you can't miss it. Dives was a connoisseur, a lover of the arts, one who knows and appreciates fine living, four star restaurants.
We are told in vs. 19 that he habitually dressed in purple. Purple was known as the color of royalty because it was the most expensive dye in the ancient world. Only the upper echelon and the high priest could afford it. We are also told that his undergarments were made of fine linen. Linen, the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
The other man in the story is Lazarus. How can we describe Lazarus? Lararus is homeless. We are told in vs. 20 that he was a cripple. Lazarus barely made it from day to day, living off the leftovers thrown to him by Dives as he daily passed him. He is just a survivor, that's all you can say of him.
One day, said Jesus, both men died. Death after all is the great equalizer. Death does not care about your social standing, your color, or your standing in the community. Lazarus, said Jesus, was carried away by the angel of death unto heaven, where he occupied the seat of honor next to Abraham. About Dives, the rich man, all that Jesus says is that he was buried. Isn't that strange that that is all that he says? After all, Dives funeral must having been something that the community would remember for years to come. Apparently, however, that fact failed to impress Jesus. Oh, Jesus did add one additional fact about Dives' death that may be of interest to you. His soul was sent to hell.
This is an unnerving story. I can well see why this was the irritating grain of sand in Albert Schweitzer's oyster. Why is this story so bothersome? For a few moments this morning I would like to share exactly why. It is bothersome because….
- First, it shows how God reverses the standards of the world.
- Second, it is a terrible fate for a man who was not mean.
- Third, the rich man begs to warn his living brothers.
22. Wait and Watch
Illustration
Mark Trotter
Our text concludes with the counsel, "When these things come to pass, stand up and lift up your heads, for your redemption is drawing near." That's been the experience of Christians for all these years. Whether they are in exodus, or in exile, we are not alone.
Our four year old grandson has provided me a wonderful illustration of this. His mother was going to go away for a couple of days. The night before she left, as she was in the two boys' room to hear their prayers, she told them she was going to go away, and asked if in their prayers they would like to ask God to protect her on her journey.
Jesse, the six year old, thought not. But Luke, the four year old, prayed this prayer: "Dear God, if buffaloes or bears, or other mean animals, come near mommy, can you handle it? If you can't, just call on Jesus."
Luke attends a Nazarene preschool. I suspect that is where he got he got that accent. But the words are universally Christian. There is a new covenant now, a new promise, since Christmas, that he will be with us, "Lo, I am with you always till the end of the age."
That's our hope. There is a way of living with that hope. It is found in two words that are always associated with Advent: wait, and watch.
23. The Mirror of Judas
Illustration
Larry Powell
So muchhas been written, discussed, and speculated about Judas that we feel we know enough about him already. And really, what more is there to say of him other than he is for all times the supreme symbol of betrayal? Nothing, unless we are willing to admit that there was such about his life which causes us to be introspective about our own.
1. Jesus had confidence in him. To begin with, Jesus observed qualities about Judas which were suitable for discipleship. Had there been no goodness, no promise, no ability, Judas certainly would not have been included among the Twelve. Moreover, he was capable and trustworthy enough to be selected as treasurer for the group. So for whatever reason, future potential or ability already acquired, Jesus had confidence in him.
Has not Christ placed tremendous confidence in us? The care of his church, the propagation of his message, the extension of his ministry, faithfulness to our vows. Shall we too betray his confidence?
2. Judas knew how to be discerning. He was not without practical judgment. The care of the treasury would hardly be entrusted to a reckless, emotion-driven individual. Judas was present in the house of Mary and Martha when Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with an expensive ointment. His protest of the anointing is not without merit, inasmuch as his concern was not for himself, but that the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor. From time to time a similar protest is raised today by those who question the wisdom of erecting church facilities costing hundreds of thousands of dollars while so many hungry remain to be fed.
Each of us has been entrusted with the freedom of choice and the ability to discern. Do we betray Christ by our choices?
3. Judas had opportunity. His position among Christ’s chosen naturally enabled him to produce a positive witness. And even near the end, he had the opportunity to abort his scheme, the motive of which is still unclear to us. Jesus announced at the table that the one who would betray him would dip in the same dish as the others. Judas played dumb, but inwardly he knew that Jesus saw through his pretense. Judas had opportunity.
As members of Christ’s family, we have numerous opportunities to make positive witnesses. As a people who have followed our own schemes and well-devised plans, we have the opportunity to repent. Shall we betray Christ by bungling our opportunity?
4. Judas had access to Jesus. The fact that Judas was able to walk up to Christ in the garden and greet him with a kiss, the traditional greeting of a disciple for a teacher, clearly establishes that he had easy access to Jesus.
The Scriptures tell us that Christ serves as our "high priest," interceding on our behalf, having access to God, even as we have access to the Son through prayer. To neglect prayer and the spiritual life is to abuse the access. Shall we betray Christ by abusing our access?
What more is there to say of Judas, unless we are willing to admit that there was such about his life which causes us to be introspective about our own?
24. The Dollar Carries the Message
Illustration
Vincent Peale
Like so many other everyday things, even our money bears witness to the fact that ours is a God-founded nation, and it emphasizes the additional fact that as a nation we rely upon Divine Providence.
On the dollar bill is a pyramid, which represents the building of our country. The pyramid is unfinished symbolizingthat our nation is not yet completed. Directly above the pyramid is an eye of providence symbolizing the eye of God. This stresses the importance of putting spiritual welfare above material prosperity. Our Founding Fathers firmly believed that our strength was rooted in God and that our progress must always be under the watchful eye of Providence.
Another important symbol is contained in the words Annuit Coeptis in a semicircle at the top of the seal. Referring to the Almighty,meaning "He has smiled on our undertakings." And, finally, three Latin words appear directly under the pyramid, meaning "A new order of the ages." That statement suggests that our nation, under God, is introducing a new age in the life and freedom of mankind.
25. Some Rules Need to be Broken
Illustration
Larry Powell
Let us fabricatea situation in order to refer to an actual circ*mstance. Suppose that your family doctor spent the better part of his time enjoying the company of his cohorts, all of them healthy, sharing a common interest, and preserving the clinic by keeping it in good repair, yet never associated with persons beset by maladies. The clinic has been the medical center for as long as anyone can remember, but is used primarily for research and as a place to house medical books. The doctors are far too involved with perusing the records, studying cures, and maintaining the dignity of medicine to bother themselves with the sick and infirm. To carry this hypothetical situation further, let us say that a new doctor appears in town, totally unrelated to the time-honored clinic, independent of the guild. He seeks out the diseased, actually associates with them, and proceeds to cure their ailments. Immediately, the professional guild begins to question his credentials and stirs up public opinion against him.
Now read Mark 2:15-17. Jesus has invited certain tax collectors and "sinners" to dinner in his own home. The scribes and Pharisees, no doubt chaffed because Jesus had not invited them instead, raised a question which is, in fact, unintelligible for men of their profession: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Why was he not at the holy of holies with them observing proper rituals and diet? Why did he not take his fellowship with the saints, the "clean" and righteous? Jesus not only explained the messianic format, he also reprimanded them for their insular hypocrisy: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
The Pharisees were monitors of the Law. It is true ... there must always be individuals around us to call our attention to the rules, but it is an additional gift of grace when such persons possess at least a minimum of common sense. Some years ago, I received a telephone call from a parishioner who desperately pleaded that I come immediately to her house and rush her to the emergency room of a local hospital. Knowing that she had been experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy, I did not ask questions, but quickly ran to the car and hurried to her house. She was waiting on the front porch as I drove into the driveway. As I helped her into the car, she kept saying, "Hurry, hurry!" In a matter of moments I drove up to the entrance of the emergency room, jumped from the car and started around to open the door to assist the young lady inside. Even before I could reach the other side of the car, a man in uniform came charging from behind the sliding glass doors shouting, "You can’t park here ... this area must be kept open for emergency!" I explained to him that this was an emergency. "I can’t help that," he said, "you’ll have to move the car before you can bring her in." I had to move the car, park it at a considerable distance from the emergency room entrance and almost carry the expectant mother into the hospital. As I mentioned, there must always be individuals to remind us of the rules, but it is an additional gift of grace if they have a minimum of common sense.
The Pharisees scolded Jesus for associating with sinners (Mark 2:16), chastized him for plucking grain for nourishment on the sabbath (23-28), and rebuked him for healing a man with a withered hand on the same day (3:1-6). Jesus was threatening their security, their positions, and assuming their authority. Not surprisingly, rather than reassessing their own witness, they dug in all the more, and "stirred up the people against him."
26. Historical Information about the Sadducees
Illustration
Brian Stoffregen
It is generally thought that their name came from Zadok, who was the high priest under David, or possibly a later Zadok. The group by this name first appeared in the 2nd century BC and disappeared in the 1st century AD after the destruction of the temple in 70. There would be no need for temple priests if there were no temple.
According to Josephus as reported by the Harper's Dictionary of the Bible, "the Sadducees are said to reject the immortality of the soul, to attribute all human activity to free will and none to fate (or providence), and to reject other traditions, especially those of the Pharisees."
The article goes on to state:
The Sadducees were influential with only a few wealthy families and not with the people, who followed the Pharisees' interpretation of the law.... [they] were boorish in their social interactions,... they encouraged conflict with rather than respect for their teachers, were more stern than the Pharisees in recommending punishments for crimes, and ... aroused Herod's suspicions because they supported the Hasmoneans against him. From this data many commentators have surmised that the Sadducees were mostly priests and wealthy, powerful community leaders who sat in the Sanhedrin, were greatly hellenized (i.e., influenced by Greek culture), and cultivated good relationships with the Romans. [p. 891]
27. The Iniquity of us All
Illustration
James Packer
Why did the Father will the death of his only beloved Son, and in so painful and shameful a form? Because the Father had "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). Jesus' death was vicarious (undergone in our place) and atoning (securing remission of sins for us and reconciliation to God). It was a sacrificial death, fulfilling the principle of atonement taught in connection with the Old Testament sacrifices: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11).
As the "last Adam," the second man in history to act on mankind's behalf, Jesus died a representative death. As a sacrificial victim who put away our sins by undergoing the death penalty that was our due, Jesus died as our substitute. By removing God's wrath against us for sin, his death was an act of propitiation (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2,; 4:10 "expiation," signifying that which puts away sin, is only half the meaning). By saving us from slavery to ungodliness and divine retribution for sin, Jesus' death was an act of redemption (Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). By mediating and making peace between us and God, it was an act of reconciliation (Rom. 5:10-11). It opened the door to our justification (pardon and acceptance) and our adoption (becoming God's sons and heirs Rom. 5:1,9; Gal. 4:4-5).
This happy relationship with our Maker, based on and sealed by blood atonement, is the "New Covenant" of which Jesus spoke in the Upper Room (1 Cor. 11:25; Matt. 26:28).
28. You've Been What?
Illustration
Richard Lischer
In a church I served, one of the pillars of the congregation stopped by my office just before services to tell me he'd been born again.
You've been what? I asked.
Yes, he said, last week I visited my brother-in-law's church, the Running River of Life Tabernacle, and I don't know what it was, but something happened and I'm born again.
You can't be born again, I said, you're a Lutheran. You are the chairman of the board of trustees. He was brimming with joy, but I was sulking. Why?
Because spiritual renewal is wonderful as long as it occurs within acceptable, usually mainline, channels and does not threaten my understanding of God.
29. GOLDSMITH
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Isaiah 46:6 - "Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales, hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god; then they fall down and worship!"
Nehemiah 3:8 - "Next to them Uzziel the son of Harhaiah, goldsmith, repaired ..."
Gold! How we love it and dream about it, even though as currency it is no longer in use. But the glamour of it remains. A great many people still spend their lives searching for the "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!" We can share a vicarious thrill with Schliemann as he unearthed the gold burial mask that he felt belonged to Agamemmonn. We have shuddered at the stories in our history books that told of the atrocities committed by the Spaniards as they hunted in South and Central America for El Dorado, "the gilded one." Some years ago, many of the artifacts from the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamen were put on display in many parts of our country, and I can remember the magnificence of these gold pieces.
Yes, gold has always had a special connotation for people in all cultures. It was probably the first metal known to man, since it is found in nature in a pure state and so requires only refining. It occurs in the Bible hundreds of times, and in both the Old and the New Testaments more frequently than any other metal. We know of the golden calf that the Hebrews cast in the wilderness. We have the Golden Rule - so called, probably, because gold signifies something of an inestimable value and utility.
Naturally, something that was so valuable and held in such esteem would be used extensively in the House of the Lord. If you will read again the instructions the Lord gave Moses in chapters 25 and 26 of Exodus, you will note all the gold that was to be used in constructing the Tabernacle. And, of course, by the time that Solomon built his magnificent Temple and, still later, Herod built his, the lavish use of gold was breathtaking.
Since they were performing such a valuable service, it is only natural that the goldsmiths were held in very high esteem. This was particularly true during the Middle Bronze Age (long before even the monarchy), when the special technique called "granulation" was developed, by which tiny globules of gold were arranged in patterns and soldered onto a gold surface.
In looking back at the texts, you might read again the one from Nehemiah. It seems that by his time, the goldsmiths had organized themselves into guilds, which correspond very closely to the type of union which goldsmiths have today. They enjoyed great benefits from their association with this guild and received protection from it.
Their skill was amazing. For a people who lived long before the mechanical aids that we have today, their delicacy of design is remarkable. They were even able to make narrow threads of gold by cutting sheet gold. Surely a ticklish procedure at best!
30. How Could He Say That?
Illustration
Larry Bethune
Horatio G. Spafford was a Chicago attorney who lost everything he had in the great Chicago fire of 1871. Yet he put his best efforts into helping Dwight L. Moody rebuild the Northside Tabernacle, the first building to go back up after that disaster. In 1873 Spafford's wife and four daughters were en route to England aboard the Ville du Havre when it was struck at sea by another ship and sank. Only his wife survived. In the face of such grief, in the pain and sorrow and guilt that threatened to drown him in sorrow, Spafford wrote:
When peace like a river attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll,
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say
It is well, it is well with my soul.
How could he say that? His life was built on a strong foundation, and when the rains came, he knew he was in a house - and his children were in a house - that would stand forever. Remember those other words Jesus spoke about a house? "In my Father's house are many rooms," he said. "I go to prepare a place for you..." (John 14:1-6).
31. SILVERSMITH
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Judges 17:4 - "So when he restored the money to his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave it to the silversmith, who made it into a graven image and a molten image; and it was in the house of Micah."
Acts 19:24 - "For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen."
Gold and copper probably were discovered before silver, but silver was known and valued by mankind before the time of recorded history. Slag deposits dating from 3000 B.C. have been found in Asia Minor and on islands in the Aegean Sea. A famous ancient silver district was located at Laurium, Greece, about 1000 B.C.
Silver was used by the ancients in making musical instruments, vessels, cups, idols, and so forth. It was also extensively used in the Tabernacle.
The work of the silversmith involved assembling and repairing all types of objects made of silver, as well as making new ones. Silver was heated by an intensive fire until it became softened for easy workability, and then, while squatting on the ground, the silversmith worked with pliers to shape the object; with saws and hammers to make the shapes and designs he wished.
Silver used to be extensively used in coinage, but today, although this use has declined, its value in the arts and in industry has soared. Motion pictures would not have been possible without silver, and silver solders are important in the aviation industry. Silver is used in the manufacture of photographic materials, in electronics, manufacture of chemicals and foodstuffs, and in laboratory equipment.
Compounds of silver are used in medicine, in glass manufacture, in plating of mirrors and metals, in pharmaceuticals, as chemical reagents, in the manufacture of mother-of-pearl, and in dentistry.
So, it is obvious, today’s worker with metal may have branched out considerably from the silverworker of biblical times, but we could hardly do without him.
32. An Unexpected Call
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
There's an urban legend about a store-front church which is called Almighty God Tabernacle. One Saturday evening, the pastor of this church was working late, and decided to call his wife before he left for home. It was about 10 PM, but his wife did not answer the phone. The pastor let it ring about two dozen times but she didn't answer. He thought it was a little odd, but decided to finish up a few things and try a few minutes later.
When he tried again, she answered right away. He asked her why she hadn't answered before, and she said that the phone hadn't rung at their house. They brushed it off as a fluke and went on their merry ways.
The following Monday, the pastor received a call at the church office, which was the phone that he'd used that Saturday night. The man that he spoke with wanted to know why he'd called on Saturday night. The pastor couldn't figure out what the guy was talking about. Then the guy said, "It rang and rang and rang, but I didn't answer."
The pastor then remembered the mishap and apologized for disturbing him, explaining that he'd tried to call his wife. The man said, "That's okay. Let me tell you my story. You see, I was planning to commit suicide on Saturday night, but before I did, I prayed, 'God if you're there, and you don't want me to do this, give me a sign now.' At that point my phone started to ring. I looked at the caller ID, and it said, 'Almighty God'. I was afraid to answer!"
God is still God. God still reaches out through the unexpected and Transforms lives. Sometimes we're knowingly a part of that great ministry. Sometimes we have no clue. But with us or without our awareness God still transforms lives.
Note: Many version of this story exist on the internet but it has never been verified. We label this "urban legend" and should be introduced as such.
33. WEAVER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
1 Samuel 17:7 - "And the shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him."
Job 7:6 - "My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle, and come to their end without hope."
Weaving is the process of making a fabric by interlacing two or more sets of yarn at right angles to each other. The lengthwise set is called the warf; the crosswise is the weft. Before any weaving can be done, the warp yarns must be stretched on the loom, or weaving frame, so that they are even, parallel, and taut.
The most primitive loom was probably the branch of a tree, from which the warp threads were hung, with a stone tied on the end of each thread to hold it in place. Next came the loom consisting of two sticks between which the warp was stretched.
In biblical times, three kinds of looms were in use:
1. The Egyptian vertical loom consisted of a warp beam at the top and a cloth beam at the bottom. Two weavers stood at each side of the loom and passed the shuttle back and forth, alternating sheds beating the weft down. Gravity helped pack the wefts tightly.
2. The Greek vertical loom consisted of a cloth beam at the top and loom weights on the bottom of the warps. The weaver stood in front of the loom and bent the weft upward.
3. The horizontal loom was the kind most often used by the Hebrews. This consisted of two beams held secure by four pegs driven into the ground. The weaver sat in front of the loom. This particular type of loom is narrower than the other two. It was also easily moved, and thus in favor with nomads.
Weaving was commonly practiced by both men and women, although probably more often by women, at least, in making materials for use in the home. However, men were responsible for the making of fabrics for the Tabernacle and for priests’ apparel.
Sheep’s wool, goat’s hair, camel’s hair, flax, hemp, and ramie were among the materials used for weaving, and the standard width for both woolen and linen materials was four cubits or about six feet.
We use the term, "the distaff side," when referring to women, and this comes from a reference to weaving in the Book of Proverbs: "She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle" (Proverbs 31:19). The distaff was the stick which held the combed wool. It was held in the left hand so that the right hand was free to manipulate the thread and spindle. The women were so adept at this that they could spin the yarn as they walked, talked, and, sometimes, even when they ate!
Today our materials are made commercially on huge looms, but the principle of the weaving is the same. It has come down almost intact from the past. And without the weaver we would all be very cold people when winter came around!
34. What Does It Cost to Follow Jesus?
Illustration
Edward F. Markquart
We need to talk about evangelism and the Christian cultural push for larger growth and larger churches. It seems to me that we, the contemporary American church, are forever talking about the pleasures and benefits of belonging to a particular Christian congregation. We hear such phrases in our congregation as "We have a great schedule and you can even come for the "early bird special" when the church is open for business at the 7:30 AM worship. At the next service, we have a great church choir and the quality of music rivals the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. At the next worship service, we have a great contemporary worship service with a band that excels all others. We have a great senior's program with so many activities that a senior has an activity planned once or twice a week. We have a great youth program and your child will be influenced by Christian values and Christian friends." And so information about a congregation is presented in such a way as to persuade people to join our congregation. … All the while, no one seems to talk about the fine print as to what this will cost. No, I am not referring to offerings to pay the bills, but what it means to be a Christian, to be a follower of Jesus Christ - what's it going to COST to follow Jesus?
35. TANNER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Acts 9:43 - "And he stayed in Joppa for many days with one Simon, a tanner."
Tanning, which is the conversion of the hides of goats, sheep, camels, and calves into leather, is a very ancient art. As far back as the Exodus, we find that "tanned rams’ skins" were used as coverings for the tabernacle. And ancient man also found that leather was valuable as a material for receptacles. Well-preserved leather articles, dating from as early as 2000 B.C., have been found by archealogists, In fact, the mummies of ancient Egypt are examples of the early art of tanning.
Partly, perhaps, because of this association with the embalming of the dead in hated Egypt, and, certainly, because the tanner’s art necessarily included the handling of dead animals, the tanner was scorned by his fellows. The Talmud has many slighting things to say about them. And, as with the fuller, the odors connected with his work made it necessary for him to remove himself from other people. Also, he needed running water, so we find that they lived outside of the cities.
The Simon in our text lived by the seaside and, as a note to consider, it was an example of Peter’s changing attitude toward what he considered to be clean and unclean, that he would consent to stay with a person of such an occupation. In fact, it was in the house of Simon that Peter had his vision of a sheet of things which God had declared to be clean!
In practicing his trade, the tanner first removed the hairs from the hides by soaking them in lime or another abrasive substance and then washing them in running water, all the while scraping off dirt, impurities, and any other foreign objects. The hides were then sundried and treated with sumac pads, oak bark, pine bark, or leaves.
Having completed all this, the tanner had now produced leather, from which a great many articles in every day use were made. Scribes often used it for writing material; the military used it for shields, helmets, slings, quivers, and chariot sides; everyone used it for footwear, and many other articles of clothing. Goatskins were used in making bottles to carry water, to hold new wine, and to store milk. These goatskin bags were also frequently used as churns to make butter. The holes of the legs and the tail were sewn up and the neck opening served as the top of the bottle. You will recall that Jesus spoke of the wine bag in connection with his denunciation of the Pharisees (Mark 2:22).
The leather maker of today is perhaps more of an artisan than his ancient brother. The hides that he used are handled in different commercial ways, but the basic process is still the same, and the end product remains. And that’s not all that remains - go through any city that boasts a tannery, and if the wind is right - or wrong - you’ll find that the smell of the tannery hasn’t changed a bit through the centuries!
36. What Is Your Creed?
Illustration
Staff
C.H. Spurgeon first words in the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London:
I would propose that the subject of the ministry of this house, as long as this platform shall stand, and as long as this house shall be frequented by worshipers, shall be the person of Jesus Christ. I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, "It is Jesus Christ."
My venerated predecessor, Dr. Gill, has left a [theological heritage] admirable and excellent in its way. But the [legacy] to which I would pin and bind myself forever, God helping me,...is Jesus Christ, who is the arm and substance of the gospel, who is in Himself all theology, the incarnation of every precious truth.
37. Bless That Weak Message
Illustration
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, known as "the prince of preachers," felt he delivered his sermon so poorly one Sunday that he was ashamed of himself. As he walked away from his church, the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, he wondered how any good could come from that message. When he arrived home, he dropped to his knees and prayed, "Lord God, You can do something with nothing. Bless that poor sermon."
In the months that followed, 41 people said that they had decided to trust Christ as Saviour because of that "weak" message. The following Sunday, to make up for his previous "failure," Spurgeon had prepared a "great" sermon but no one responded.
Spurgeon's experience underscores two important lessons for all who serve the Lord. First, we need the blessing of God on our efforts. Solomon said in Psalm 127:1, "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it." And second, our weakness is an occasion for the working of God's power. The apostle Paul said, "I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor. 12:10).
Showing
1
to
37
of
37
results
- Evangelicals make up smaller share of US population than commonly thought: report
- Oklahoma rescinds contract for first Catholic charter school amid legal setbacks
- Columbia University president resigns amid criticism over Israel-Gaza protests
- Orioles players share love for Christ during first-ever 'Faith Night': 'The most important thing'
- Billy Graham's granddaughter joins 'Evangelicals for Harris,' quotes Isaiah to blast Trump supporters
- Family of Christian woman kidnapped, sold into sexual slavery pressured to drop murder charges
- Uplifting 'My Penguin Friend' film challenges audiences to steward, honor God's creation
- Israel considers creation of inquiry commission to fend off looming ICC arrest warrants
- Toxic workplace, plagiarism, border crisis: 5 Kamala Harris controversies since 2020
- Gateway Church cancels conference after Robert Morris resignation
- New Zealand Uncovers Historic Abuse in Church-Run Institutions
- Died: Timothy Dudley-Smith, Who Turned Metrical Poetry into Hundreds of Hymns
- After Pastor Led 400 to Starve, Some Kenyan Christians Open to Church Restrictions
- In Zimbabwe, Secular Education Is Overtaking Historic Mission Schools
- Philly Pastor: Church Parking Can Be a ‘Stumbling Block’ in the Bike Lane
- Died: Patricia Gundry, Evangelical Feminist Who Wanted Women to Be Free
- Some Churches Lose Coverage as Insurers Hit by a Wave of Storm Claims
- The Olympics’ Most Iconic Photo Has a Christian Message
- Died: Doris Brougham, Missionary Who Taught English to Taiwan
- Walz’s Brand Is More Left than Lutheran Among Minnesota Evangelicals
- Marvel's Most Powerful Character Will Never Be In The MCU For A Good Reason
- I Was Forced Into An Arranged Marriage At 18. Then I Found A Chat Room That Promised Escape — For A Price.
- Bioethicists scrutinize Pontifical Academy for Life’s new guidance on withdrawing food, water
- ‘Saturday Night Live’ Alum Victoria Jackson Shares Inoperable Cancer Diagnosis
- See The Rolls-Royce Phantom Scintilla From Every Angle
- Madonna’s 60 best singles ranked as Queen of Pop turns 66
- A planned float in NYC's India Day Parade is anti-Muslim and should be removed, opponents say
- Trump Made $300K From Bible Endorsem*nt, Over $500K From 'A MAGA Journey' And Millions From Book Royalties, Latest Financial Disclosure Shows
- Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term
- The Idea that Changed the World (Va’etchanan)
- Two Views of Freedom
- Presidents, Power, Faith, and the Boardroom
- Non-Defenders of the Faith: Christianity Under Assault in England
- The Broken Logic of Infant Baptism
- Michigan Conversion Therapy Ban Violates Nature, Religious Freedom
- The Death of Deterrence
- When Rabbis Say Nothing in the Face of Abuse
- Sit There and Shut Up
- Can Church Leaders Reverse 2,000 Years of Anti-Jewish Hate?
- Iraq's Yazidis Hope Village will Prompt Survivors of ISIS Massacre to Return
