Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jericho, “the city of palm trees” (Deut. 34:3; Judg. 3:13; 2Chron. 28:15), is located about four miles west of the Jordan River and about ten miles north of the Dead Sea. It is located about 850 feet below sea level on a narrow plain across from one of the major Jordan River crossings. Its location was crucial to protect this important east-west route. Immediately behind the city the land rises quickly into a mountainous region known as the Judean Wilderness.

Jericho is possibly the earliest continuously inhabited city in the world, with archaeological finds going back perhaps as early as 9000 BC. Jericho is most famous for being the first city defeated by the Israelites during the conquest under Joshua (Josh. 5:136:27).

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

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

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

In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 1923) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1Kings 8:2324; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.

Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35).

Almost all the oil to which the Bible refers is olive oil. Oil was used primarily for cooking, but also for medicinal purposes, cosmetics, lighting, and religious ceremonies.

Oil was one of the major export products of Palestine, with huge economic impact on Israel and Judah. Oil often was used as currency for other needed materials (Deut. 7:13; Neh. 5:11; Luke 16:6). For example, Elisha performed a miracle with oil to help a widow pay her debts (2Kings 4:7). Oil was kept as part of the royal stores (2Kings 20:13; 2Chron. 32:28). There are dozens of ostraca that detail the trading, bartering, and selling of oil.

Oil was one of the main ingredients for cooking. A typical meal consisted of flour pressed together with oil and fried with oil on a griddle (1Kings 17:1216). This was also the typical way in which grain offerings were made at the tabernacle and temple (Lev. 2:1, 4–7). Oil was also used in lamps because it burned cleanly and produced bright light (2Kings 4:10; Matt. 25:3–8). Lamps were used throughout the house. Small lamps, often no larger than a hand, were used to give people light when they were walking and traveling at night. In such instances, extra oil usually was carried as a reserve (Matt. 25:1–13). Both the tabernacle and the temple used olive oil to light their lamps. The finest oil was also used for sacrifices at the tabernacle (Exod. 27:20; 29:40; Lev. 24:2; Num. 28:5).

Oil was used cosmetically as well. For instance, oil was put in the hair for beauty (Eccles. 9:8). Oil was also the normal base for perfumes, mixed with a variety of spices (Esther 2:12). The tabernacle had special anointing oil that was mixed to make a perfume (Exod. 30:25). Oil was also used medicinally to help heal wounds, either by mixing it with other substances or by itself to help seal a wound (Luke 10:34). The elders of the church were commissioned to pray for and anoint the sick with oil (James 5:14).

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used asa medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals,grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam.8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller,more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages.Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold alongwith commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them(37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but itcould have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as longas it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and internationalstandards developed to regulate the weights, and later the conceptgrew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stampedpieces of precious metal—coins.

OldTestament. Mintingof coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC,and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coinsapparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy ofgold and silver.

Whenthe Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixthcentury BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to theland of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention oflarge quantities of Persian coins called “darics”(1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas”(NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72).These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great(521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver.At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins)from Athens made their way to the western shores of theMediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD”to represent the province of Judah.

NewTestament.Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots,while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

Forseveral centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancientNear East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander orhis Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. Inparticular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyreand Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,”the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’smouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all ofthe thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas forbetraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels aswell, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the templein Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

Afterthe Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion ledby the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, theJews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor ofproducing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I(134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus.Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has aninscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on theother. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled twopurposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had givenhis people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins,as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this perioddevout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the secondcommandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’sson Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities ofdifferent types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations inIsrael today. These coins remained in circulation for many years,probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins forwhich Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury(Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of AlexanderJannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worthonly 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

Itis also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted byAlexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish kingHerod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similarsmall bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continuedto avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, sodid his sons and the later Roman procurators (including PontiusPilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revoltin AD 66.

OtherRoman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outsideJudea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt.22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) oreven Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably stillin circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wageof a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers(Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many otherpassages, although modern translators sometimes use a moreinterpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “twodenarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for“three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Althoughmany of the references discussed above contain specific terms thatcan be identified with coins known from history, others cannot.General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money”sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the moneychangers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver thatappears frequently and is often translated as “money”(Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet.1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and inthe Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors. The NT uses theGreek term kardia similarly to the OT Hebrew terms leb and lebab andin some cases depends on OT usage.

Mindand Emotions

Metaphorically,the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or eventhe whole person. It also refers to the center of something or itsinner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importanceand location.

Mind.The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these casesdoes not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while theneurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, ithas no bearing on this use of language. We also should not confusesome modern English idioms or distinctions as being related to thebiblical viewpoint. The Bible does not make a distinction between“head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” nordoes it employ language making the “heart” good orsuperior and the “head/mind” bad, inferior, or merelyintellectual. It does not prize the emotional over the thoughtful; ithas a more integrated viewpoint.

Deuteronomy6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul,and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occursin three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common toall three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospelwriters want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,”but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrewword for “heart” includes the mind.

Themental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heartis where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18;Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makesplans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron.29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, andskill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is theplace of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role ofconscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:20–21).

Itis often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for“heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp themental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to loveGod with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments thatI give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6).Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes ourperspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” isclearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents totalk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. Inorder for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds needto be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him.Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation onand determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is notmerely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview inwhich the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truthrequires careful, reflective thought.

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

Idioms

Theword “heart” also appears in several idioms.

Hardnessof heart.A hard heart is obstinate or averse (Mark 3:5), while a tender heartis humble (2Kings 22:19). In the book of Exodus thetranslations typically say that God or Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s/hisheart. These passages in Exodus use not the Hebrew words for hardnessbut rather those for being heavy or for strengthening. The neutralsense of strengthening the heart takes on nuances in context forbeing bold or obstinate. Pharaoh was strengthened in his oppositionto God, and this obstinacy fits the idiom of having a hard heart.

Uncircumcised/circumcisedheart.An uncircumcised heart is a metaphor for an obstinate and rebelliousheart, while a circumcised heart is linked to being humble andfaithful (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Acts 7:51). Perhaps themetaphor is based on the role of circumcision in the covenant.

“Aman after his [God’s] own heart” (1Sam. 13:14).This description of David may mean either “according to his[God’s] choice” (cf. 2Sam. 7:21), stressing God’schoice over the people’s choice, or it may mean “inaccordance with his [God’s] desire” (1Sam. 14:7;1Kings 15:3), referring to how David showed conformity withGod’s agenda.

Allthe heart.The phrase “with all [one’s] heart” in some casesmeans “wholeheartedly” or “single-mindedly,”which emphasizes unity of purpose and focus. In other cases it seemsto mean, more broadly, “with all of one’s thinking orperspective” and implies the work of adjusting our worldviewaway from common cultural assumptions and toward God’steaching.

Sayin one’s heart.This expression denotes talking to oneself (i.e., thinking) ratherthan out loud or indicates reflection or deliberation. There areseveral warnings not to lie to oneself—that is, not todeliberate, believe, and act on the stated false premise.

Take[a matter] to heart.To take something to heart is to take it very seriously or to give ithigh priority.

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.

Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.

NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).

Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.

Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.

NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).

Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Origins,Composition, and Constitution

Origins.The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins.Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn toE-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptiantexts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide ahelpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern toexplain the origin and role of humanity in the world.

Onedistinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generallyspeak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer tothis phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation betterserves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as alabor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes anoriginal human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. Thisphenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merelycreated to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is aspecial creation of God, intended to bear his image.

Composition.The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The LordGod formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into hisnostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life(1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity isalso quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from thedust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earthand that which is dead. The wordplay between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears tobe a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the majorconnection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.

Constitution.Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit atrichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2Cor.4:16; 5:1–9; 1Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though theGreek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body(sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf.Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2Cor. 4:11). Either approach isforeign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in theanthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity inrelation to Christ’s new creative work.

Formand Function

Form:male and female.Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah)(Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a“suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that theunderlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively inreference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitablehelper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, orstatus.

TheBible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man,probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22).Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares aconnection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connectionwith a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often istaken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptivestatement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).

Function:image of God.The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by Godis that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of theimage of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen.1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancientNear East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. Inthe Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2Cor.4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although thismay imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function overthe rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how imagesare meant to represent a god’s presence.

Humanityin Pauline Thought

Paul’sconception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as hisvision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as“risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the finaldestiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1Cor.15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of theeffects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom.8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1Cor.15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation”(Gal. 6:15; cf. 2Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of thecosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being unitedwith Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things”into “new things” (2Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19),this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality isalready partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in thispresent “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “thereis neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there maleand female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1Cor.12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in thetension of already beginning to experience the act of new creationand not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom.8:18–30; 2Cor. 12:5–10).

Behind the English translation “mercy” liediverse biblical words in Hebrew (khesed, khanan, rakham) and inGreek (charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon). These words are alsotranslated as “love,” “compassion,” “grace,”“favor,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”and so on, depending on context. Hence, a conceptual approach to themeaning of “mercy” is best.

God’sMercy

Mercyas part of God’s character.Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God iscalled “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV[NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich inmercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’smercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people(1Kings 8:23–24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed theoppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy,which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.Here, the rekindling of God’s mercy toward the Israelites wasdepicted in terms of remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob (Exod. 2:23–25). Mercy is a manifestation of God’sfaithfulness to his covenant. Hence, God’s mercy to hiscovenant people never ceases (Pss. 119:132; 103:17).

Godhas absolute sovereignty in electing the people to whom he wills toshow mercy. A classic expression appears in Exod. 33:19: “Iwill have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassionon whom I will have compassion.” Paul quoted this to explainGod’s sovereignty in electing Jacob as the recipient of God’smercy (Rom. 9:13–15). God’s mercy cannot be acquired byhuman effort or desire (Rom. 9:16). God even ordered the Israelitesto show no mercy to the Canaanites because of their corruption andidolatry (Deut. 7:2).

Diverseimages are used to describe God’s mercy. God is compared to aloving father who has compassion on his children (Jer. 31:20; Mal.3:17). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lordhas compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed,he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:13–14). God’scompassion is also compared to that of a nursing mother who feeds herbaby at her breast (Isa. 49:15). The images of the loving father andthe loving mother reflect closely the heart of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. God is especially merciful to the needy,the weak, the afflicted, and the oppressed (Exod. 2:23–24; Ps.123:2–3; Isa. 49:13; Heb. 4:16). God is called “a fatherto the fatherless” and “a defender of widows” (Ps.68:5). Sinners appeal for God’s mercy when they requestforgiveness (Ps. 51:1). “Have mercy on me” is a commonform of expression when the psalmist entreats God for his forgiveness(Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is also shown in his act ofsalvation and blessing (Exod. 15:13; Deut. 13:17–18; Judg.2:18; Eph. 2:4–5).

God’smercy in redemptive history.Redemptive history is a successive demonstration of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. It was because of God’s mercy that hetook the initiative to save fallen human beings (Gen. 3:15). Deathwas the due penalty for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17), but God preachedthe good news of mercy that the descendant of the woman would somedaycrush the head of the serpent. In Rev. 20:2 that ancient serpent inthe garden of Eden is identified as “the devil, or Satan,”whose head was crushed by Jesus Christ on the cross and is bound bythe coming Messiah “for a thousand years” and will be“thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:2, 10).In spite of God’s judgment on Cain, the first murderer, Godshowed mercy by putting a mark on him so that no one would kill him(Gen. 4:15). As the psalmist later confesses, God proves himself asthe merciful God who “does not treat us as our sins deserve orrepay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10).

Noahand his family were saved from the judgment of the flood because ofGod’s special mercy toward them (Gen. 6:8). Immediately afterGod confused the languages of human beings because of their challengeto him (Gen. 11:1–9), God showed mercy on Abram, “awandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), and designated him to be thefather of his chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3). Jacob’selection originated solely from God’s mercy, as Paul pointedout by quoting Scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”(Rom. 9:13). The exodus is also the clearest evidence of God’sdemonstration of mercy toward his chosen people (Exod. 2:23–25).They were saved not by their own righteousness but rather by God’smercy on the covenant people, who suffered under the bondage ofPharaoh’s slavery. God’s mercy reached its climax when hesent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners (Rom. 5:8). It isbecause of God’s mercy that we are saved, not because of ourrighteousness (Titus 3:5).

Christ’sMercy

JesusChrist lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodilymanifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercywhenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospelsdescribe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed theblind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and thedead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, whodid not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheepwithout a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

Jesus’ministry of healing and evangelism was motivated by his deep mercyand compassion toward people in physical and spiritual need (Luke4:16–21; cf. Isa. 61:1–2). Whenever the sick appealed tohis mercy, Jesus never refused to dispense it to them (Matt. 15:22;17:14–18). For example, he healed the two blind men whoentreated his mercy (Matt. 20:30–34). When a leper, kneelingbefore him, entreated his mercy, Jesus touched him (risking his ownuncleanness according to the law) and healed him (Matt. 8:2–3).When a centurion asked for Jesus’ mercy on his sick servant, hewas willing to go and heal the sick man (Matt. 8:5–13). Jesus’mercy was aroused especially when he saw people crying for the dead,and even he shed tears (John 11:33–35). When Jesus saw a widowcrying for her dead son during a funeral procession, he comforted andhad compassion on her and made her son alive (Luke 7:12–15).

Accordingto Heb. 2:17–18, Jesus became “a merciful and faithfulhigh priest” to make atonement for the sins of his people. Heis also compared to the high priest who is able to sympathize withour weaknesses because he “has been tempted in every way, justas we are” (Heb. 4:15). His high priestly work on earth washighlighted in terms of his ministry of mercy toward his people. LikeGod’s mercy, Jesus’ mercy was shown in his actions ofsalvation (Luke 19:10; Eph. 5:2; 1Tim. 1:14–16; Titus3:4–7), of blessing (Mark 10:13–16), and of forgiveness(Mark 2:10; Luke 23:34). Paul’s personal experience led him toconfess, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we haddone, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5). Jesus’character of mercy was most vividly manifested on the cross when heprayed for the forgiveness of the crucifying soldiers and the cursingcrowds (Luke 23:33–37).

HumanResponse to God’s Mercy

Whatis the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? Godexpects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people.One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant(Matt. 18:23–35). The central focus of this parable is on theunmerciful servant, to whom a tremendous mercy is shown by the king,but who refuses to show a little mercy to his fellow servant. Theparable concludes with the king’s statement that no mercy willbe shown to those who do not show mercy and forgiveness to others.Hence, a forgiving attitude is a must for believers, who havereceived immeasurable mercy from God when he forgave their sins atthe time of repentance. The Lord’s Prayer also includes thebeliever’s forgiveness of others as being inseparably linked tothe request for forgiveness from God (Matt. 6:12). Jesus affirms thisidea in a subsequent statement: “For if you forgive otherpeople when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will alsoforgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Fatherwill not forgive your sins” (6:14–15).

Mercyis one of the eight blessings in the Beatitudes: “Blessed arethe merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Jesus’response to the critical Pharisees reveals that our merciful lifeshould precede our religious life (9:13). According to the parable ofthe good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the true neighbor is theone who shows mercy to the afflicted. Its conclusion, “Go anddo likewise” (10:37), requires believers to show mercy to theirsuffering neighbors. At the last judgment the righteous arecharacterized by their lives of showing mercy to the hungry, thethirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned(Matt. 25:37–40). In Luke 6:36, Jesus summarizes the law ofmercy: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”According to James, “judgment without mercy will be shown toanyone who has not been merciful”; however, “mercytriumphs over judgment” (James 2:12–13). And according tothe prophets, a merciless life is characteristic of godless people(Isa. 13:18; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42; Amos 1:11–12).

Itis by God’s mercy that believers can persevere during the timeof suffering (2Cor. 4:1). Their prayer is the channel throughwhich they draw God’s mercy. Hence, the writer of Hebrewsexhorts believers to “approach God’s throne of grace withconfidence, so that we may receive mercy” (Heb. 4:16).

In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb“to associate with.” This is an important connectionbecause relationships of various kinds are central to the issue ofneighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend(2Sam. 13:3), a rival (1Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1),or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentiallydefines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethicalresponsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29).Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technicalmeaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite”(=“brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literatureprohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) aswell as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife(Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor areprohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negativestipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 areclimactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically.Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev.19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even theresident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev.19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).

Whenthe NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that isroutinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotesLev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt.19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Whois my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan(Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more importantthan conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor wasanyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” inpurely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits ofone’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism,denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in”or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expandsocial, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality ofrelationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NTnow prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal.6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).

Almost all the oil to which the Bible refers is olive oil.Oil was used primarily for cooking, but also for medicinal purposes,cosmetics, lighting, and religious ceremonies.

Oliveoil was produced in several different ways, but there were somecommon characteristics of all the different production methods. Olivetrees were numerous in Israel and often were cultivated and plantedin groves. The Mount of Olives in Jerusalem was so named because ofthe large olive groves there (2Sam. 15:30). Olives wereharvested sometime in the fall by handpicking them or hitting thetree to make the olives fall (Deut. 24:20). Next, the olives werepartially crushed so that the kernels (pits) could be removed withoutcrushing them. Crushing the kernel would result in ruining the oil.Then the pits were removed by hand, and the pitted olives werecrushed to procure the oil. The olives could be crushed by foot (Mic.6:15 NRSV), by beating them with a heavy stick, or by placing them ina shallow stone trench and rolling a stone wheel over them. Finally,the crushed olives were placed in a woven sieve to allow the oil todrain out. The remains of the olives were then soaked in water andpressed at least twice more. This produced more oil, though of muchlower quality. As a result, oil was sold according to its qualitylevel. By the time of the monarchy in Israel, there were severallarge mills that produced large quantities of oil both for use in thecountry and for export. The finest quality oil—the clear, pureoil drained off before pressing—was specially processed andsuitable for ceremonial use.

Oilwas one of the major export products of Palestine, with huge economicimpact on Israel and Judah. Oil often was used as currency for otherneeded materials (Deut. 7:13; Neh. 5:11; Luke 16:6). For example,Elisha preformed a miracle with oil to help a widow pay her debts(2Kings 4:7). Oil was kept as part of the royal stores (2Kings20:13; 2Chron. 32:28). There are dozens of ostraca that detailthe trading, bartering, and selling of oil.

Oilwas one of the main ingredients for cooking. A typical meal consistedof flour pressed together with oil and fried with oil on a griddle(1Kings 17:12–16). This was also the typical way in whichgrain offerings were made at the tabernacle and temple (Lev. 2:1,4–7). Oil was also used in lamps because it burned cleanly andproduced bright light (2Kings 4:10; Matt. 25:3–8). Lampswere used throughout the house. Small lamps, often no larger than ahand, were used to give people light when they were walking andtraveling at night. In such instances, extra oil usually was carriedas a reserve (Matt. 25:1–13). Both the tabernacle and thetemple used olive oil to light their lamps. The finest oil was alsoused for sacrifices at the tabernacle (Exod. 27:20; 29:40; Lev. 24:2;Num. 28:5).

Oilwas used cosmetically as well. For instance, oil was put in the hairfor beauty (Eccles. 9:8). Oil was also the normal base for perfumes,mixed with a variety of spices (Esther 2:12). The tabernacle hadspecial anointing oil that was mixed to make a perfume (Exod. 30:25).Oil was also used medicinally to help heal wounds, either by mixingit with other substances or by itself to help seal a wound (Luke10:34). The elders of the church were commissioned to pray for andanoint the sick with oil (James 5:14).

To pity someone is to feel or express compassion toward thatperson. Of the two main Hebrew verbs translated “pity,”khus describes an attitude of merciful kindness toward a person(Deut. 25:12), and khamal refers to sparing someone from somethingnegative (Lam. 2:2). When khus and khamal occur in the same sentence,the NIV generally translates them “pity” and “spare”respectively(e.g., Deut. 13:8; Ezek. 7:4). The Greek eleeō can also betranslated “to have mercy” (Luke 17:13 NASB), whilesplanchnizomai graphically depicts compassion (Luke 10:33), assplanchna, from whichsplanchnizomai is derived, is the Greek word for “intestines”(compare English: “My heart goes out to you”).

Mostoften, when “pity” occurs in the Bible, lack of pity isunder discussion. The Israelites were to show no pity to theCanaanites (Deut. 7:16), nor were they to pity those who violated theMosaic law (Deut. 19:21; 25:11–12). God repeatedly warned theIsraelites that he would show them no pity when he judged them (Isa.9:17; Jer. 13:14; Ezek. 7:4). However, God does express pity (Ezek.16:5–6; Zech. 8:14–15), particularly through Jesus Christ(Matt. 18:27; Mark 9:22; Luke 17:13–14) and Christians (1John3:17).

According to the Bible, the Samaritans are the descendants ofthe peoples whom SargonII settled in Samaria after he conqueredit and the northern Israelites (see also Samaria). As such, they werenot quite Jewish, not quite Gentile. Although there is a Samaritanreligious sect, it is a mistake to equate Samaritans in the Biblewith one of the sectarians in every instance. Samaritans arementioned rarely in the OT; for example, 2Kings 17:29 reportsthat the Samaritans worshiped the gods that they brought from theirhome countries at high places that they made.

TheNT mentions the Samaritans. The story of the woman at the well inJohn 4 depicts Jesus ministering to a Samaritan. We learn in thispassage (John 4:9) that Jews like Jesus did not eat or drink from thesame vessel as a Samaritan since they believed it would render themritually unclean [see NET: “For Jews use nothing in common withSamaritans”]. One of the chief points of contention betweenJews and Samaritans is highlighted in this passage: Samaritansbelieve that Mount Gerizim is God’s chosen worship site, notZion. Also alluded to here is the Samaritans’ belief in a“returning one” (Aram. taheb), who will guide theSamaritans to repentance and reestablish proper worship. In John 8:48Jesus’ opponents level a charge against him, asking him if heis not indeed a Samaritan and possessed by a demon.

Inthe Synoptic Gospels, Samaritans are variously depicted as beingincluded in Jesus’ ministry (Luke 9:52) or excluded from it(Matt. 10:5). In other places in the Gospels, Samaritans are used asa foil by which Jesus indicts his listeners for not following God aswell as they should. His Jewish audience would not have missed thepoint in his parable when the Samaritan proves to be a morecompassionate neighbor than the priest or Levite (Luke 10:25–37),or when Jesus heals ten lepers and only one, a Samaritan, returns topraise God and give thanks (17:16). Given Luke’s emphasis onthe inclusive nature of the Gospel, his mentioning of Samaritans insuch positive ways highlights that emphasis.

Inthe book of Acts, Luke continues to use the Samaritans as an exampleof how the Gospel is for everyone. Peter and John, after confirmingthat Samaria had received and responded to the word, preached in thevillages of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–25).

Scholarsare not certain when Jews and Samaritans became two differentreligious groups, but most likely this happened when John Hyrcanusdestroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in 128 BC. Althoughthere were tensions before this, as is evident in Nehemiah and inJosephus, before the destruction of their temple the rift probablywas not complete.

TheSamaritans exist today and have the following basic beliefs:(1)There is only one God. (2)Moses was the last andgreatest prophet. (3)The five books of Moses are the onlyauthoritative Scripture. (4)Mount Gerizim is God’s chosenplace. (5)There will be a day of judgment and recompense.(6)The “returning one,” the Taheb, will appear.

Reconstructingthe beliefs of the Samaritans before the fourth century AD isdifficult because all we have before then are the sparse statementsof outside sources and archaeological remains. Archaeological remainsof a Samaritan synagogue on the Greek island of Delos includededicatory inscriptions dated from the late third to early secondcenturies BC and the second to first centuries BC. These inscriptionsmention those who worship on Mount Gerizim.

A name given by the apostles to Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus,missionary companion of Paul, and cousin of John Mark (Acts 4:36).Luke interprets the name “Barnabas” to mean (in Aramaic)“son of encouragement,” although this etymology isdebated. Barnabas was known in the early church for hisgenerosity and reconciling spirit.

Barnabasfirst appears in the book of Acts as a model of generosity for theJerusalem church when he sells a piece of property to support thepoor in the church (4:36–37). His example contrasts sharplywith Ananias and Sapphira, who are judged by God for lying to theHoly Spirit concerning their own gift to the church. Barnabas nextappears as the member of the Jerusalem church courageous enough tobring Saul, the former persecutor, to the leaders of the Jerusalemchurch (9:26–27). Later, when reports of Gentile conversions inAntioch were received in Jerusalem, Barnabas was sent to Antioch tosupervise the work there. Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Saulwith him to Antioch (11:22–26). There they ministered together,at one point delivering famine relief to Jerusalem (11:30).

Thechurch in Antioch received a revelation from the Holy Spirit to sendBarnabas and Saul on the first missionary outreach (Acts 13:2).Accompanied by Barnabas’s cousin John Mark, they traveled toBarnabas’s home island of Cyprus and then to the Roman provinceof Galatia. Mark deserted the group in Perga and returned toJerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas established churches in PisidianAntioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13–14). Afterreturning to Antioch, Barnabas accompanied Paul to the Jerusalemcouncil to settle the Judaizing controversy concerning whetherGentiles must keep the law and be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15).

Uponreturning to Antioch, Paul suggested a return to the churches inGalatia. Barnabas proposed taking John Mark, but Paul refused, andthe ensuing conflict resulted in Paul’s departure to Galatiawith Silas, with Barnabas taking John Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:36–41).This is the last we hear of Barnabas in Acts.

Paulmentions Barnabas five times in his letters (1 Cor. 9:6; Gal.2:1, 9, 13; Col. 4:10). He refers to Mark as Barnabas’s cousin(Col. 4:10), speaks of their Jerusalem famine visit (Gal. 2:1, 9),and relates an episode of apparent hypocrisy when Barnabas withdrewfrom Gentile table fellowship under pressure from Jewish Christians(Gal. 2:13).

Laterchurch writings attributed additional traditions to Barnabas. Clementof Alexandria claimed that Barnabas was one of the seventy sent outby Jesus in Luke 10 and also identified him as the author of theEpistle of Barnabas. Tertullian said that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, andthe fifth or sixth century Acts of Barnabas describes his laterministry and martyrdom in Cyprus. None of these later traditions havesufficient evidence to confirm their historicity.

Almost all the oil to which the Bible refers is olive oil.Oil was used primarily for cooking, but also for medicinal purposes,cosmetics, lighting, and religious ceremonies.

Oliveoil was produced in several different ways, but there were somecommon characteristics of all the different production methods. Olivetrees were numerous in Israel and often were cultivated and plantedin groves. The Mount of Olives in Jerusalem was so named because ofthe large olive groves there (2Sam. 15:30). Olives wereharvested sometime in the fall by handpicking them or hitting thetree to make the olives fall (Deut. 24:20). Next, the olives werepartially crushed so that the kernels (pits) could be removed withoutcrushing them. Crushing the kernel would result in ruining the oil.Then the pits were removed by hand, and the pitted olives werecrushed to procure the oil. The olives could be crushed by foot (Mic.6:15 NRSV), by beating them with a heavy stick, or by placing them ina shallow stone trench and rolling a stone wheel over them. Finally,the crushed olives were placed in a woven sieve to allow the oil todrain out. The remains of the olives were then soaked in water andpressed at least twice more. This produced more oil, though of muchlower quality. As a result, oil was sold according to its qualitylevel. By the time of the monarchy in Israel, there were severallarge mills that produced large quantities of oil both for use in thecountry and for export. The finest quality oil—the clear, pureoil drained off before pressing—was specially processed andsuitable for ceremonial use.

Oilwas one of the major export products of Palestine, with huge economicimpact on Israel and Judah. Oil often was used as currency for otherneeded materials (Deut. 7:13; Neh. 5:11; Luke 16:6). For example,Elisha preformed a miracle with oil to help a widow pay her debts(2Kings 4:7). Oil was kept as part of the royal stores (2Kings20:13; 2Chron. 32:28). There are dozens of ostraca that detailthe trading, bartering, and selling of oil.

Oilwas one of the main ingredients for cooking. A typical meal consistedof flour pressed together with oil and fried with oil on a griddle(1Kings 17:12–16). This was also the typical way in whichgrain offerings were made at the tabernacle and temple (Lev. 2:1,4–7). Oil was also used in lamps because it burned cleanly andproduced bright light (2Kings 4:10; Matt. 25:3–8). Lampswere used throughout the house. Small lamps, often no larger than ahand, were used to give people light when they were walking andtraveling at night. In such instances, extra oil usually was carriedas a reserve (Matt. 25:1–13). Both the tabernacle and thetemple used olive oil to light their lamps. The finest oil was alsoused for sacrifices at the tabernacle (Exod. 27:20; 29:40; Lev. 24:2;Num. 28:5).

Oilwas used cosmetically as well. For instance, oil was put in the hairfor beauty (Eccles. 9:8). Oil was also the normal base for perfumes,mixed with a variety of spices (Esther 2:12). The tabernacle hadspecial anointing oil that was mixed to make a perfume (Exod. 30:25).Oil was also used medicinally to help heal wounds, either by mixingit with other substances or by itself to help seal a wound (Luke10:34). The elders of the church were commissioned to pray for andanoint the sick with oil (James 5:14).

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility,rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hateis as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellionof Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people(e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating eachother, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5;Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct,however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does(Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takesno pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The twogreat commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to loveGod wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5;10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is alsocommanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hateour enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5;Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actionsare not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father whodoes not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him withhatred (Prov. 13:24).

Withregard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is,whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had beencommitted deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num.35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established bymultiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did notgarner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signifiedthat it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6,11; Josh. 20:5).

Withregard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger ofpreferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The lawforbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod.21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he isborn to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may beexpressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. Thisprobably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hatingLeah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection,favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in thecase of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosingEsau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), orin not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt.6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility,rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hateis as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellionof Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people(e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating eachother, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5;Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct,however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does(Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takesno pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The twogreat commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to loveGod wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5;10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is alsocommanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hateour enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5;Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actionsare not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father whodoes not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him withhatred (Prov. 13:24).

Withregard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is,whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had beencommitted deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num.35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established bymultiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did notgarner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signifiedthat it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6,11; Josh. 20:5).

Withregard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger ofpreferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The lawforbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod.21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he isborn to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may beexpressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. Thisprobably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hatingLeah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection,favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in thecase of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosingEsau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), orin not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt.6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.

Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.

NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).

Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Origins,Composition, and Constitution

Origins.The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins.Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn toE-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptiantexts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide ahelpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern toexplain the origin and role of humanity in the world.

Onedistinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generallyspeak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer tothis phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation betterserves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as alabor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes anoriginal human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. Thisphenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merelycreated to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is aspecial creation of God, intended to bear his image.

Composition.The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The LordGod formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into hisnostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life(1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity isalso quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from thedust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earthand that which is dead. The wordplay between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears tobe a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the majorconnection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.

Constitution.Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit atrichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2Cor.4:16; 5:1–9; 1Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though theGreek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body(sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf.Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2Cor. 4:11). Either approach isforeign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in theanthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity inrelation to Christ’s new creative work.

Formand Function

Form:male and female.Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah)(Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a“suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that theunderlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively inreference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitablehelper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, orstatus.

TheBible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man,probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22).Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares aconnection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connectionwith a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often istaken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptivestatement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).

Function:image of God.The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by Godis that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of theimage of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen.1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancientNear East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. Inthe Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2Cor.4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although thismay imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function overthe rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how imagesare meant to represent a god’s presence.

Humanityin Pauline Thought

Paul’sconception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as hisvision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as“risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the finaldestiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1Cor.15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of theeffects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom.8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1Cor.15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation”(Gal. 6:15; cf. 2Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of thecosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being unitedwith Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things”into “new things” (2Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19),this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality isalready partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in thispresent “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “thereis neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there maleand female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1Cor.12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in thetension of already beginning to experience the act of new creationand not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom.8:18–30; 2Cor. 12:5–10).

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

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

Commonand Extraordinary Justification

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

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

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

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

Pauland Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jamesand Justification

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

OtherViews on Justification

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

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used asa medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals,grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam.8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller,more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages.Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold alongwith commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them(37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but itcould have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as longas it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and internationalstandards developed to regulate the weights, and later the conceptgrew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stampedpieces of precious metal—coins.

OldTestament. Mintingof coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC,and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coinsapparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy ofgold and silver.

Whenthe Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixthcentury BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to theland of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention oflarge quantities of Persian coins called “darics”(1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas”(NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72).These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great(521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver.At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins)from Athens made their way to the western shores of theMediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD”to represent the province of Judah.

NewTestament.Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots,while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

Forseveral centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancientNear East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander orhis Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. Inparticular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyreand Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,”the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’smouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all ofthe thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas forbetraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels aswell, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the templein Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

Afterthe Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion ledby the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, theJews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor ofproducing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I(134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus.Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has aninscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on theother. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled twopurposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had givenhis people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins,as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this perioddevout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the secondcommandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’sson Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities ofdifferent types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations inIsrael today. These coins remained in circulation for many years,probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins forwhich Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury(Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of AlexanderJannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worthonly 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

Itis also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted byAlexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish kingHerod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similarsmall bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continuedto avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, sodid his sons and the later Roman procurators (including PontiusPilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revoltin AD 66.

OtherRoman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outsideJudea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt.22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) oreven Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably stillin circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wageof a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers(Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many otherpassages, although modern translators sometimes use a moreinterpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “twodenarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for“three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Althoughmany of the references discussed above contain specific terms thatcan be identified with coins known from history, others cannot.General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money”sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the moneychangers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver thatappears frequently and is often translated as “money”(Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet.1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth suchthat the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1.The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2.Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circ*mstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3.Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4.Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5.In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.

Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.

NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).

Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).

The acquisition of another’s property by force orthreat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), oftenthrough ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the goodSamaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead(Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition againststealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, whichis explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguishrobbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likelybecause the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as acivil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of propertyalong with some compensation for distress, which varied according tothe item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4;Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal couldbe sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should theviolence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injuryapplied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, undercertain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victimand not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two mencrucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers”(Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word(lēstēs)likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”).This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as commoncriminals rather than as freedom fighters.

Goddeclares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa.61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially whenperpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victimfrom a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), onefor which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describeshimself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealingfrom him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greekhas two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs)from a thief (kleptēs).In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it torepresent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’shouse (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11,those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17;Luke 19:46).

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used asa medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals,grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam.8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller,more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages.Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold alongwith commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them(37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but itcould have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as longas it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and internationalstandards developed to regulate the weights, and later the conceptgrew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stampedpieces of precious metal—coins.

OldTestament. Mintingof coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC,and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coinsapparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy ofgold and silver.

Whenthe Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixthcentury BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to theland of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention oflarge quantities of Persian coins called “darics”(1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas”(NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72).These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great(521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver.At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins)from Athens made their way to the western shores of theMediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD”to represent the province of Judah.

NewTestament.Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots,while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

Forseveral centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancientNear East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander orhis Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. Inparticular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyreand Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,”the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’smouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all ofthe thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas forbetraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels aswell, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the templein Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

Afterthe Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion ledby the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, theJews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor ofproducing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I(134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus.Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has aninscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on theother. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled twopurposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had givenhis people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins,as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this perioddevout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the secondcommandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’sson Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities ofdifferent types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations inIsrael today. These coins remained in circulation for many years,probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins forwhich Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury(Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of AlexanderJannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worthonly 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

Itis also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted byAlexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish kingHerod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similarsmall bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continuedto avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, sodid his sons and the later Roman procurators (including PontiusPilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revoltin AD 66.

OtherRoman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outsideJudea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt.22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) oreven Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably stillin circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wageof a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers(Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many otherpassages, although modern translators sometimes use a moreinterpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “twodenarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for“three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Althoughmany of the references discussed above contain specific terms thatcan be identified with coins known from history, others cannot.General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money”sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the moneychangers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver thatappears frequently and is often translated as “money”(Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet.1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

The acquisition of another’s property by force orthreat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), oftenthrough ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the goodSamaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead(Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition againststealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, whichis explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguishrobbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likelybecause the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as acivil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of propertyalong with some compensation for distress, which varied according tothe item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4;Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal couldbe sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should theviolence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injuryapplied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, undercertain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victimand not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two mencrucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers”(Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word(lēstēs)likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”).This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as commoncriminals rather than as freedom fighters.

Goddeclares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa.61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially whenperpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victimfrom a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), onefor which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describeshimself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealingfrom him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greekhas two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs)from a thief (kleptēs).In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it torepresent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’shouse (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11,those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17;Luke 19:46).

Shema is the transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “hear”(shema’ ),the first word of Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God,the Lord is one.” The text that begins with this verse istherefore referred to as the Shema. The Shema emphasizes the onenessof God and the obligation to love him and is the most importantprayer in Judaism. It is recited twice daily and begins a weeklyliturgical reading that includes Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21;Num. 15:37–41. These Torah passages emphasize monotheism andthe centrality of the commandments.

Jesuscalled the Shema the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29–30; Matt.22:37–38; Luke 10:27) and invoked it in teaching his onenesswith the Father (John 10:30). Paul later expanded the Shema toinclude Jesus (1Cor. 8:6).